Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 19 February.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 12 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that long supplementary questions are unfair to other hon. Members who have questions on the Order Paper.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Expenditure

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received to date on the effects of financial cuts on education provision.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I have met deputations from all the main teacher unions, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of Universities of the United Kingdom and from the TUC. I have also met the Archbishop of Westminster and other Church leaders; and I have received many letters from individuals

and representatives of local interests, either direct or through hon. Members.

Mr. Roberts: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the widely held view in education circles is that the cuts, in conjunction with the Education (No. 2) Bill, will seriously damage mandatory educational provision? It will devastate the non-mandatory sector and abolish virtually all educational welfare provisions such as school meals. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the industrial action that is being taken today by teachers is a reflection of the real concern felt by them, if not by all Conservative Members.

Hon. Members: Too long.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must be patient. That is a short question in North Wales.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not accept a word of what he says. The reductions in expenditure are necessary. I believe that they can be achieved without causing damage in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. With regard to his comment about teachers, I hope very much that before they consider taking action of any kind they will consider the effect of that action on the children they teach.

Mr. Montgomery: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that today in Trafford, because of cuts in education, the National Union of Teachers has decided to take limited strike action, despite the fact that the council was prepared last Friday to make concessions? The education of children in Trafford is suffering. Is there any move that can be made to restore full-time teaching in the schools of Trafford?

Mr. Carlisle: It is for the Trafford local education authority to decide the way in which it makes reductions in public expenditure. I repeat that I very much regret any action taken by the National Union of Teachers, or any other teaching body, that will harm the educational opportunities of children.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take advantage of this Question Time to announce what changes he proposes to make to clause 23 of the Education (No. 2) Bill to


prevent new impositions on parents? Is he aware that if he does not make substantial changes in this respect he will render denominational choice ineffectual in many schools, impose new impoverishment upon parents who are already demonstrably poor and make it impossible for many parents to afford to send their children to school in rural areas?

Mr. Carlisle: No, Sir, I shall not do that at this stage. However, I have made it clear that I shall consider whether it is necessary to put down any amendments on Report. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Report stage is likely to be taken during the early part of next week. I can add only two other comments. First, it is not the intention of the Government in any way to damage the interests of denominational schools. Secondly, the answer to the hon. Gentleman's comment about poor children is that under our proposals local education authorities have power to remit any charges that they may make in any cases which they think are appropriate.

Mr. Beith: Since school transport and school meals represent the biggest cuts, what will the Secretary of State say to those authorities which decide not to impose these charges, at least in full measure, especially on country and Catholic children? Will they not have to face more cuts in the classroom as a result?

Mr. Carlisle: Yes, I fear that that is so. The Government have made it clear that, in the interests of the economy as a whole, these reductions in expenditure must be made. I hope that a large proportion can be made out of charging for meals and transport, rather than in the classroom. If local education authorities choose to do it in another way, that is a matter for them. But it follows, I accept, that if they are to make the reductions and choose not to do it in that way, inevitably it must have some greater effect on the standard of education.

Mr. Alan Clark: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take advantage of this opportunity to deny that there is any suggestion of cutting back—still less doing away with—the assisted places scheme? Does he agree that there is a distinction between measures designed to

improve the economy and those designed to take advantage of that improvement?

Mr. Carlisle: I should like to make it absolutely clear to my hon. Friend that the provisions for the assisted places scheme are in the Education (No. 2) Bill that is going through the House. It is my intention that it should start as proposed, but I have always made it clear that the timing and the extent of its implementation must be left in my hands.

Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that the sale by the Staffordshire county council of the land in Llandudno on which the Blackfriars school for the disabled has its holiday caravan is an absolute disgrace? Will he issue directions to counties not to take the consequences of these cuts out on the disabled?

Mr. Carlisle: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is an extremely detailed question, of which I must ask him to give me notice. If he cares to write to me about that matter I shall look into it.

Primary and Secondary School Rolls

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what he expects will be the size of reduction in school rolls in 1980–81 for primary and secondary schools, respectively.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): Between January 1980 and January 1981 it is expected that in England and Wales primary school rolls will fall by 180,000, or 4 per cent., and secondary school rolls by 40,000, or 1 per cent.

Mr. Miller: Does my hon. Friend agree that these reductions allow some scope for a reduction in expenditure but also room for an increase in standards, and that most parents are concerned about standards? Will he tell the House what he is doing to improve standards in education?

Dr. Boyson: I accept the two points that my hon. Friend has made. Over the two years 1978–79 and 1980–81 there will be a 4·7 per cent. reduction in pupils, but the reduction in expenditure will be only 3·5 per cent. That should allow more expenditure per pupil. In any case,


educational standards are not just a question of money. They are also a question of core curriculum, discipline in the classroom and the way in which examinations are organised.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is it not correct that in certain areas, such as Leicestershire, the number of pupils on school rolls will increase? If that is so, will the Minister give a direction to Tory councils, such as that of Leicestershire, that they should not dismiss ancillary workers from their primary or secondary schools, thus devastating standards of education in those schools and imposing a burden on those who can bear it least?

Dr. Boyson: In areas such as Leicestershire, which I accept may be faced with increases in population, these increases will be taken into account for rate support grant and facilities will be provided for the authorities there to maintain, and indeed to improve, standards in the schools.

Assisted Places Scheme

Mr. Porter: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, under the assisted places scheme, he intends that parents who could have afforded the fees at the schools in question should be able to obtain financial assistance.

Mr. John Townend: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if it is proposed to have some totally free places under the assisted places scheme; and what test will be applied for the award of such places.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Parental contributions towards the cost of school fees under the assisted places scheme will be means-tested. The means test will set an income threshold up to which full remission will be paid, and an upper limit beyond which no help will be given.

Mr. Porter: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm and emphasise that the scale is such that only those children whose parents cannot afford the full fees will benefit from the scheme?

Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I confirm that the purpose of the scheme is to give certain children whose parents would not otherwise be able to afford the fees the opportunity to benefit

from the education provided at the schools which join the scheme.

Mr. Townend: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's reply, but will he give an indication of the level of family income at which parents will no longer be entitled to a free place for their children?

Mr. Carlisle: I cannot do that now, but I can tell the House that it is my intention, following the undertaking given by the Under-Secretary, to set out our proposed scale of income later this week so that the House will have knowledge of it before we reach the Report stage of the Bill.

Mr. Christopher Price: Now that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has announced to the House in a written answer that he has received from schools only half the applications necessary to run the scheme—that is before any sorting out has been done—when will he announce the reduced scale on which the assisted places scheme must now run?

Mr. Carlisle: The answer is that the figures given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in a written answer yesterday show that to date we have had applications in relation to 10,000 places starting each year. Further applications are still coming in.
In reply to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question I can only repeat what I said in answer to the first question—that the timing and the extent of the introduction must be a matter for me. Clearly, it is a matter on which I shall inform the House on an appropriate occasion.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House whether the average cost to the State of a child under the assisted places scheme is likely to be more or less than the cost of keeping that child in a maintained secondary school?

Mr. Carlisle: I cannot answer that question exactly at this moment, but in general terms it would be roughly the same.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that he asked schools to enter their applications by the end of January? For how long does he


intend to extend the date of application? Will it be until he has enough applications to justify the scheme in his terms?
We welcome the withdrawal that is taking place, although it is being done gradually and grudgingly, but will the right hon. and learned Gentleman further reconsider the matter and erase the scheme altogether, to remove both the threat and the insult that the scheme poses towards the maintained sector?

Mr. Carlisle: It is right that we asked for replies by 31 January. It is equally right that replies are still coming in. That is not unreasonable, perhaps, in view of the fact that our letter went out shortly before Christmas, on 6 December. Governing boards tend not to meet over the Christmas period. Answers are, therefore, still coming in.
My reply to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that I do not accept that this scheme, any more than the old direct grant scheme, is in any way an insult to the maintained sector of education.

Physically or Mentally Handicapped Pupils

Miss Wright: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance he has given, or intends to give, to local education authorities regarding increased or decreased per capita expenditure on physically or mentally handicapped pupils for the financial year 1980–81.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): The Government's expenditure plans, as embodied in the rate support grant settlement for 1980–81, assume that, nationally, per capita expenditure on physically or mentally handicapped pupils will be mainatined at about its present level. My Department informed officers of the local authority associations about this assumption last November.

Miss Wright: In view of the local authorities' general intention to cut education as a result of Government admonishment, will the hon. Gentleman accept that it is necessary for the Government to indicate clearly to local education authorities that it is not their intention that expenditure should be cut in the case of the most needy and least vocal

members of the school community? The Government should put their money where their mouth is and say that they are prepared to fund, if not increase, the support for the mentally and physically handicapped.

Mr. Macfarlane: I indicated that my Department made this clear last November to the local authority associations. I hope that that will provide some sort of reassurance to the hon. Lady.
It is ultimately for individual local authorities to determine the pattern of their expenditure, but they must take into account the Government's view that standards of provision in special education should be protected at all costs. In recent years expenditure per pupil in special education has consistently risen. The national overall pupil-teacher ratio in maintained special schools now stands at just over 7: 1. The current standards of provision in terms of per capita expenditure are at their best ever level.

Mr. Ashley: As the expenditure on many physically disabled pupils is abysmally low in many areas, is not there a case now for asking for increased expenditure for this small group of people?

Mr. Macfarlane: The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. I hope that he was reassured by the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Miss Wright). As I said, expenditure has been maintained. Indeed, it has consistently risen over the years, and I have no doubt that local authorities will continue to view this provision with compassion.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister tell us what steps are to be taken to ensure that pupils who are physically or mentally handicapped are not discriminated against by the Education (No. 2) Bill? Is he not concerned about the effects of the transport clauses, which will discriminate against mentally and physically handicapped pupils? Unless the Minister is willing to give a specific direction to local authorities and to safeguard the position of those pupils, local authorities will make cuts that will damage their education. Unless the Minister does something, he will be opting out of his responsibilities.

Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Lady has gone over an important argument. We rehearsed that argument on and off during 100 hours in Committee and on the Floor of the House. All local authorities, social services and education authorities are aware of their commitments, duties and responsibilities. The Department will keep the matter under constant review and I have no doubt that local authorities will maintain a responsible attitude to these important commitments.

Pupil-Teacher Ratios

Mr. Allan Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what have been the pupil-teacher ratios of maintained schools in Bootle over the last three years; and what are the anticipated ratios for 1980–81 and 1981–82.

Dr. Boyson: Separate figures for Bootle are not available. For Sefton, the local education authority within which Bootle is situated, the overall pupil-teacher ratios for maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools were 20·6 in January 1977, 20·3 in 1978 and 19·6 in 1979. The local authority estimates that the ratio for January 1980 remains unchanged at 19·6. Projections of pupil-teacher ratios for individual local authorities are not made by my Department.

Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that his figures are probably out of date as a result of a secret meeting that took place last night in Sefton? The Conservative councillors of Sefton decided behind closed doors to cut £1·3 million off an already inadequate budget. They have agreed to policies that will directly affect teacher-pupil ratios. Those policies will force 100 teachers to retire prematurely. They are to amalgamate 12 infant and junior schools. They have gone so far as to cut out swimming lessons in an area that incorporates the Leeds and Liverpool canal—the cause of many deaths. They have even decided to close a special school.

Dr. Boyson: I do not see how my figures can be out of date. Those figures were from January 1977. Whatever strange meeting may have been held last night, and whatever canals were closed in that area, I do not see how it can affect the pupil-teacher ratio of three years ago. As soon as we have received

official information about the meeting we shall study it with interest to try to understand the situation in Bootle.

School Facilities (Public Use)

Mr. Armstrong: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the Government's policy on the use of school facilities by the whole community.

Mr. Macfarlane: Generally speaking, the use of county school premises outside school hours is a matter for local education authorities and the use of voluntary aided premises a matter for the managers or governors. The Government and my right hon. and learned Friend are anxious to see the widest possible use of school premises for other community purposes. It adds to the importance of the school's role in the community.

Mr. Armstrong: Is the Minister aware that I find his reply very disappointing? Is he further aware that many schemes for extra provision are being cut because of the Government's policies? Is he aware also that it is a scandalous waste of resources to lock high quality indoor and outdoor facilities away from the community? He should take some responsibility for this matter and ensure that backward authorities at least know what the enlightened authorities are doing. He should take some initiative to ensure that these facilities are fully used.

Mr. Macfarlane: The principle behind the right hon. Gentleman's remark is well understood. However, I cannot understand why he finds my initial reply disappointing. There is nothing in the existing legislation that forbids local authorities, school governors or managers from opening those facilities and thereby making a great contribution to the local community. At the same time most members of the community understand that they will have to pay for the use of those facilities. Local authorities are entitled to make an economic charge in respect of services, such as the cost of heating and lighting, as well as any additional payment to caretakers and grounds men over and above their wages.

Mr. Hannam: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the major obstacles to the use of school premises for recreational or other purposes out of school


hours is the reluctance of school caretakers to work extra hours? Will he encourage local education authorities to allow voluntary organisations to staff those premises outside school hours?

Mr. Macfarlane: Although local authorities are responsible for such decisions, in principle we support any action that a local authority might want to take on that issue.

Mr. Freeson: Is the Minister aware that it is about 15 years since a policy circular was issued by the former Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Education? That circular advocated that all local education authorities should make dual use of buildings. To date only a minority of authorities have embarked on that policy. Does the Minister not realise that such action requires direction from central Government, or at least a lead from them? School rolls are falling in many areas. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, therefore, that schools should not be closed and that every effort should be made to use them for other purposes, such as the expansion of vocational and further education?

Mr. Macfarlane: At the outset the right hon. Gentleman said that the last circular had been issued 15 years ago. The last circular on this theme was sent out in February 1970. As I do not wish to incur your displeasure, Mr. Speaker, I shall not attempt to identify any of the long list of activities that might take place in school premises out of hours. Local authorities are entitled to expand their facilities for use within the community. Hon. Members from all parties will know which schools and colleges in their constituencies are utilised effectively. I do not believe that the picture is bad, but there is room for much improvement.

Centre for Information and Advice on Educational Disadvantage

Mrs. Reneé Short: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will reconsider his policy on future grant-aid to the Centre for Information and Advice on Educational Disadvantage following the recent submission from its governing body.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I am giving careful consideration to the detailed document

received recently from the centre's governors and will be writing to them shortly.

Mrs. Short: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the unit has been in existence for four years and that it is run on a small amount of money—less than £300,000 per annum? Will he further take into account the fact that the unit has carried out many important projects on the welfare, counselling and education of the disadvantaged? The unit has received splendid support from teaching unions and from schools. Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is scandalous that he should suggest closing the unit, when he has not visited it? Will he ensure that someone visits the unit before any decision is made about its closure?

Mr. Carlisle: Any decision to close any unit is worrying. However, as the hon. Lady said, the unit costs £300,000. From advice that I received about its achievements, and bearing in mind that its expectations must be based on the relatively limited resources that are likely to be available, I concluded that even that amount of expense was unjustified. I came to the conclusion that there were better ways of achieving those ends. However, since then I have received a letter from the governors, and I am considering their points.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that many people have considerable respect for the work produced by the centre, but have genuine reservations and doubts about whether its advice is getting to schools? That is the area of anxiety.

Mr. Carlisle: That is true. I felt that the centre was not being widely used by local education authorities, and that it had not been so used in its lifetime. I do not denigrate those who work there. The centre was given an almost impossible task, given the size of its budget.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Has the Minister, or have his hon. Friends, visited the centre to assess the work that it is doing? If not, on what basis was his assessment made? Has he had consultations with the local authorities, including many Conservative-controlled authorities, which are using the centre on an increasing scale? If the Minister believes that the


centre's work is not adequately benefiting schools, does he agree that the answer is to increase its funding not to close it?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Lady in the last part of her question put the dilemma that faces me. On the advice that I have received, I do not believe that the centre, with its present funding, can meet the remit that it has been given. We are faced with the problem of either vastly increasing its expenditure, which I do not believe can be justified, or considering whether it has a continuing valid life.
I have not visited the centre, nor, as far as I know, have my hon. Friends. We obviously have to take account of the advice that we are given. On 5 December the delegation that came to see me included among its governing body representatives of the local education authority.

Core Curriculum

Mr. Guy Barnett: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in implementing a core curriculum.

Mr. Thornton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations he proposes to have over the recent paper from his Department "A Framework for the School Curriculum"; and when he expects his proposals over the school curriculum to be implemented.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: The consultative paper "A Framework for the School Curriculum" was issued by the education departments in January. Consultations with the local authority associations, the teachers unions, the Schools Council and other major interests will be held soon. Our intention is to publish in due course a further document revised in the light of these consultations.

Mr. Barnett: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with the remarks of his Minister of State last month that the possibility of implementing a core curriculum is seriously threatened by the shortage of teachers of mathematics, science and modern languages? What provision does he propose to make to train and retrain teachers to obviate that shortage in primary and secondary schools?

Mr. Carlisle: I am concerned about the shortage of teachers of mathematics and science, because this affects the speed at which we can implement the core curriculum that we should like to see. We have specifically asked teacher training institutions to give priority to shortage subjects. I think that at our previous Question Time I announced that we were continuing for a further year the scheme for retraining teachers in the shortage subjects. I accept that that provision is not for a large number, but it is a move in the right direction.

Mr. Thornton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is widespread parental concern about the need for greater emphasis on basic subjects, particularly in primary schools? Will he accept that early moves towards the establishment of a core curriculum will be widely welcomed?

Mr. Carlisle: I realise that there is widespread concern, and I am pleased with the general support for our document. We do not wish to dictate in every detail what should be taught in schools, but we want to achieve a more general national acceptance of where the emphasis should lie.

Mr. William Shelton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that he is proposing to use persuasion rather than legislation to achieve that excellent objective?

Mr. Carlisle: Certainly. As I made clear in my main answer, our desire is to have discussions with local education authorities and teachers unions and reach general agreement on the basic framework for curricula for schools throughout the country. I hope that we can achieve that in a spirit of co-operation.

Assisted Places Scheme

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is (a) the average annual fee and (b) the maximum annual fee now contemplated for participating schools in the assisted places scheme.

Dr. Boyson: My right hon. and learned Friend has no fixed average or maximum fee in mind. We shall be considering the responses that we receive from schools individually and not against arbitrary limits of that kind.

Mr. Price: Is it contemplated that these places should be brought side by side with empty places in local authority secondary schools? If so, how can the Government justify the scheme, in the light of the plea for more efficient use of public money?

Dr. Boyson: Schools with superb sixth form facilities will take pupils from areas where the maintained sector cannot offer such facilities, particularly in inner city areas. It will be an excellent opportunity for those children.
The current recoupment level for local authority secondary schools is £715 for pupils between the age of 11 and 16, and £1,155 for pupils aged 16 plus. The six ex-direct grant schools in Manchester have an average fee of £841. In certain areas the scheme could even save money.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does the assisted places scheme extend to schools which offer specialist skills, such as ballet, music and singing, and will it help children who have problems such as dyslexia and need to go to special schools?

Dr. Boyson: Ballet and music schools were exempted under the 1976 Act, and pupils could go to them. We shall consider applications from schools at sixth form level and below where it is felt that pupils would gain advantage from the facilities offered in music, art or languages.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that his continually repeated emphasis on the sixth form aspects of the schools that he would want to be in the assisted places scheme provides strong circumstantial evidence to support the fears of the National Association of Head Teachers and many other organisations that, in reality, the assisted places scheme will mean piracy of talent at the leadership and inspiration levels from schools in the maintained sector?

Dr. Boyson: Under the system wiped out by the Labour Government, about 2 per cent. of pupils went to direct grant schools. I do not remember hearing complaints from county grammar schools then that they were being denuded of sixth form talent. The maintained schools will retain 80 per cent. of the top 20 per cent. ability pupils, and there is something wrong with them if, on those figures,

they cannot achieve good academic results.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the assisted places scheme will give great advantage to children from poor areas, and that that sort of advantage was given to certain Labour Members by the grammar school system?

Dr. Boyson: I agree entirely. I believe that when they are published the figures for acceptance on the means test will bear that out. The scheme will offer superb sixth form opportunities that do not exist in certain areas for pupils whose parents cannot afford to pay.

Mr. Hardy: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the assisted places scheme will be found attractive by the more third-rate "bucket shops" in the private sector? Will he accept that, with the shrinking child population and the declining economic situation, those institutions would otherwise be seriously threatened, since even snobbary at some point is insupportable?

Dr. Boyson: It is interesting that we are attacked from the Labour Benches on one side for taking talent from sixth forms and on the other over craft schools or what the hon. Gentleman calls "bucket shops". Labour Members should make up their minds from which side they want to attack.

Science and Mathematics Teachers

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether there are any proposals to offer financial incentives to attract scientists and mathematicians into the teaching profession; and, if so, what they are.

Dr. Boyson: My right hon. and learned Friend does not rule out that the Burnham committee might consider some form of differential financial incentive, although there are serious difficulties both of principle and of practice to be taken into account.

Mr. Winterton: I am grateful for that helpful and constructive reply, and I hope that the Burnham committee will look at the matter seriously. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that our major competitive countries in the EEC, such


as the Federal Republic of Germany, provide better conditions and pay for scientists, mathematicians and engineers? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if we are to get the right quality of teachers in those subjects we must pay them the right wage?

Dr. Boyson: It is open to local education authorities, if they so wish, to appoint suitably qualified teachers to posts in the shortage subjects on a salary scale above scale I.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that there is a shortage of mathematics teachers to meet all the demands of industry, commerce and the academic professions? Will he consider a high-powered scheme to second people with mathematical qualifications from industry to teach in schools that have a shortage in a particular subject?

Dr. Boyson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. Discussions are being held with the CBI along the lines mentioned. Our advertising campaign to attract more people to train and retrain in the shortage subjects was launched earlier this year, with 1,000 replies in the first week.

Immigrant Children (Bussing)

Mr. William Shelton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy regarding the transport of immigrant children by bus to different schools in order to avoid a large concentration of immigrant children in one school.

Mr. Macfarlane: This is purely a matter for local education authorities to determine in the light of the educational needs of the children concerned, local circumstances and the requirements of the Race Relations Act 1976. My right hon. and learned Friend welcomes the fact that most authorities do not find it necessary to bus children from ethnic minority groups.

Mr. Shelton: May I tell my hon. Friend how much I agree with the last part of his answer? Does he agree that such action would generally dislocate communities, except in the most exceptional cases, and smacks more of social engineering than education?

Mr. Macfarlane: I endorse everything that my hon. Friend has said. It must remain the responsibility of local education authorities. If there are problems within adjoining communities, local education authorities should consult each other closely, together with the ethnic minority leaders.

Mr. Dubs: Will the Minister tell his hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) that the use of the word "immigrant" is incorrect when applied to children who have been born in this country?

Mr. Macfarlane: I dare say that my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Science and Mathematics Teachers

Mr. John MacKay: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures he is taking to improve the supply of teachers of science and mathematics in schools.

Mr. Macfarlane: Teacher training institutions have been asked to give these subjects a high priority, and the Government's training and retraining schemes continue as a valuable short-term measure.

Mr. MacKay: Will my hon. Friend consider a bonus grant system for those students who elect to study mathematics and science at universities or colleges?

Mr. Macfarlane: That is a suggestion that could come under the review that is taking place within my right hon. and learned Friend's discussions. A number of discussions on this important matter have taken place with both local authority and teachers' associations. We have had consultations with the CBI, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson),to discover whether those with mathematics or science degrees who retire early could be retrained and encouraged to teach these important subjects.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend accept that one of the ways to deal with the problem is to recognise that qualifications for teachers are rising and that over the next five years we should aim to pay all teachers more, even in


preference to a reduction in the staff-pupil ratio?

Mr. Macfarlane: If that were possible it would be an ideal situation. It will have to be reviewed closely.

Mrs. Renée Short: Is the Minister seized of the urgent and pressing need to acquaint school pupils with the demands of new technology? Nothing is being done in our schools in that respect. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he ought to ensure that enough scientists and technologists go into our schools to provide that information.

Mr. Macfarlane: This is an important subject, and I shall try to answer as quickly as I can. Through the Standing Conference on Schools Science and Technology, through the organisation of SATROs—that which the hon. Lady will know of—because of our determination to encourage closer links with industry and engineering in schools, because my right hon. and learned Friend has frequently referred to the importance of teaching craft, design and technology in schools at an early age, and from meetings that have been held with the CBI, the TUC and representatives of all the teacher associations, I believe that a number of important steps have been taken in recent months that will bear fruit in the future.

Student Unions (Finance)

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will give details of the changes he proposes to make in student union financing.

Dr. Boyson: My right hon. and learned Friend will announce new arrangements in a written reply to a question later today.

Mr. Beith: Is not that an insult to the House? Is it not clear that the hon. Gentleman is trying to avoid being questioned on the subject for another six weeks, so that by the time he next stands at that Dispatch Box the scheme will be a fait accompli?

Dr. Boyson: I thought that the House would welcome the fact that at last the Government are taking action over student union financing. We could not have done it from the Dispatch Box, because

the answer is too long. Hon. Members will wish to consider the whole scheme, and it is with pleasure that we will announce it today. I warned the hon. Gentleman yesterday that that was the only way that we could do it.

Mr. Kinnock: As I understand it, the principle of the answer is a brief one. It is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman to try to avoid the question asked by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on the basis of the length of the answer. That is the hon. Gentleman's responsibility. We want the basic information now.

Dr. Boyson: The principle of making student unions more accountable than they are is accepted and understood by both sides of the House. The way that it has been worked out could not be explained briefly in the House, and that is why it will be done by a written answer.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 5 February.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the British Independent Steel Producers Association.

Mr. Jones: Does the Prime Minister agree that last night's television programme on documents published by BSC indicate that the Secretary of State for Industry deliberately provoked the national steel strike, blocked a 14 per cent. pay rise and insisted on 52,000 steel redundancies? Will the right hon. Lady assert herself against the reactionary and totally wrong policies of her right hon. Friend? Is the Iron Maiden chicken, or will she sack her right hon. Friend and stop the brutal butchery of working-class communities?

The Prime Minister: I totally reject the hon. Gentleman's ridiculous and disgraceful allegations against my right hon. Friend. Some months ago my right hon Friend, in conjunction with the industry, fixed a cash limit for next year of some £450 million, which the taxpayer


will find. Already we have a high level of tax in this country, and I think that it is as high as the taxpayer finds acceptable. We are not prepared to find more for operating losses.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend ignore the Palladium antics of the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones)? Will she find time in her very busy programme, to explain at somewhat greater length to the people of this country why our Olympic athletes should not go to Moscow? Will she explain to the people of this country that the future security of the world is more important than a few gold medals?

The Prime Minister: I have already made it clear that I think that if Olympic athletes go to Moscow that occasion will be used by Russia to indicate that either the countries which go or the athletes who go are, in some way, in favour of Russian foreign policy. I believe that that would be catastrophic. Because we know that the athletes have trained long and hard for that occasion we have asked, in the first place, for the venue to be moved to somewhere more suitable.

Mr. Foot: To return to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones), will the right hon. Lady undertake, if she has not already done so, to see last night's "World in Action" programme on the steel papers, since that programme indicated, among other things, that within BSC, long before Christmas, there were some who warned about the catastrophic effects of a steel strike and the likelihood that it would take place if they went ahead with what they themselves described as the zero offer to the steel workers?
Will the right hon. Lady tell us whether she has seen that programme? Will she undertake to do so, and will she undertake to return and report to the House on the interventions by the Government in the steel industry prior to 31 December?

The Prime Minister: I did not see the programme. I have more or less read the script, together with the radio script—[Interruption.] Yes, indeed, because I am not certain that it is accurate in every particular. I read the script, together with certain radio broadcast scripts at

lunchtime today. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the steel cash limit of £450 million for next year, following the £700 million for this year, was set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. The only fetters upon it—if I may use that word—are that the £450 million should be used for a mixture of investment, working capital and redundancy payments.
It seems to us that it is perfectly reasonable to provide good redundancy payments for those who lose their jobs, having previously provided, and continuing to provide, the best investment and equipment so that those who stay at their jobs may have the chance to earn higher and better pay.

Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Lady says that she has more or less read the script, will she give us her comments on the warnings given to her and her Government from inside BSC way before Christmas of the catastrophic effects of proceedings as the corporation eventually did proceed? What support did the Government give to that and what intervention did they make? Will she give a full report to the House when she has read the whole script?

The Prime Minister: If I may respectfully say so, the argument is not so much about percentages as about how those percentages are to be met. There is plenty of prospect for considerably improved pay if people will properly use the excellent and latest equipment and machinery that has been provided by the taxpayer. In that way, their levels of productivity will reach those of many industries on the Continent.

Mr. Foot: Is the right hon. Lady aware that a deep sense of desperation is spreading throughout the country, for which she is responsible? When will she come to the House and say that she will take some action to stop the spread of paralysis throughout the country?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of a sense of desperation. There is a great sense of desperation when a whole people provide a whole industry with the latest and best equipment so that it may become the best and most efficient steel producer in the world, and those who work in the industry do not take the opportunity to use it but go on strike to


demand more from the taxpayer—the taxpayer who, in the same world, has to make a profit.

Sir John Eden: Does my right hon. Friend feel that she will be able to reassure the members of the British Independent Steel Producers Association that Ministers will in no way miss the opportunity of the passage of the Employment Bill through the House to ensure that, never again, are they made victims of the sort of strike action to which they are being subjected? Will she also make clear that if people wish to stop the damage that the strike is creating in the country and the steel industry, they must cease going on strike and resume negotiations?

The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend's last point. It is a cause of great sorrow to me that people who are on strike are not around the table negotiating again. The Employment Bill deals with secondary picketing, but of course it does not deal with secondary strikes. I do not believe that it can deal with such strikes at the moment.

Mr. O'Neill: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 5 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I have just given.

Mr. O'Neill: When will the Prime Minister recognise the Government's wider responsibility in the steel dispute? Will she assure the 12,000 workers in my constituency who are employed in the refractory brick industry that their jobs will not be put in jeopardy? Millions of pounds of public and private money have been spent on the arm to make it profitable, while the Government stand idly by.

The Prime Minister: Jobs are put in jeopardy because of a strike. The hon. Gentleman should direct his attention to those who decide to go on strike, stay on strike and extend that strike.

Mr. Mellor: Will my right hon. Friend give a warning today about the consequences of the removal of all safety cover at BSC plants? The effect of that action may well be to destroy jobs in that industry. Will she invite the Leader of

the Opposition—whoever that might be in reality—to join in the condemnation of the foolish threatened action?

The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. If the report is correct that safety workers are being withdrawn from coke ovens and blast furnaces, by so doing they are destroying their own jobs. I doubt whether some blast furnace men would do that, but I believe that the management and staff would be able to keep the safety procedures going for some time.

Mr. Joel Barnett: In view of the Prime Minister's present position and the disastrous consequences to the national interest of what she is proposing, that is, to do nothing, will she willingly concede that, having said that she has fixed the cash limit only, by so doing she has fixed within it a wage increase? What is that wage increase that she assumed?

The Prime Minister: Of course, we have not fixed a wage increase. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the cash limit applies to three matters—investment, working capital and redundancy. The wage increase will depend upon the level of productivity, and that is what the argument is about.

Sir William Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep frustration that is felt by many workers in the steel industry, particularly in the private steel industry, because many of them do not wish to strike but are afraid to defy the unions in case of victimisation? Will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of introducing a one-clause Bill to provide that if 500 workers, or 10 per cent. of the work force, whichever is the lower, demand a ballot, that will be mandatory on the trade union leadership?

The Prime Minister: There have been times when I have believed that a one-clause Bill might be tempting. However, I must be candid with my hon. Friend. I doubt very much whether we could get a one-clause Bill through the House during the course of the strike. We have to get the strike settled first. There are provisions in the Employment Bill which will help considerably with the matter of the closed shop, to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Straw: asked the Prime Minister if
she will list her official engagements for 5 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave earlier today.

Mr. Straw: Why has the Prime Minister evaded the questions that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) put to her? His central question was about what reply the right hon. Lady gave to BSC when it predicted a catastrophe if a 2 per cent. offer was made? I repeat, what reply did she make to BSC?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman cannot know about relationships between nationalised industries and Prime Ministers. In a properly-run Government, the matter does not come to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Higgins: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to examine a parliamentary answer which suggests that the Government will continue to lend money to the Russians at subsidised rates of interest to buy capital goods. As these goods can be used to make military equipment, will she stop that immediately and seek to persuade our European partners to do the same? If not, our protest against Russian aggression and events in Afghanistan will become a farce.

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend knows, we are not continuing with the higher preferential credit terms which were previously negotiated and which terminate this month. However, we expect to continue with what are called "consensus terms" with national trade, which we are agreeing with our partners. We are trying to negotiate those terms with them.

Mr. Jay: Are the Government's industrial policies producing the results that the Prime Minister intended?

The Prime Minister: They are certainly giving people the opportunity to earn more. If they take that opportunity they will have the assurance that they will be able to keep a bigger proportion of their pay packet. If some people receiving considerable subsidies from the taxpayer strike because they want more, that is

their own viewpoint and responsibility. I will have no truck with them.

Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Lady's reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) mean "Yes we have done it all on purpose"?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman must be very much kept down when his right hon. Friend is here.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call one more hon. Member from the Government Benches because I called two hon. Gentlemen from the Opposition.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House and the country of the positive encouragement and reward given to the Soviet Union's aggression by the previous Labour Government when the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) was Prime Minister when he handed over to the Soviet Union the gold reserves of the independent republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania? They had been deposited for safe keeping with the Bank of England when Soviet Russia invaded and annexed those republics.

The Prime Minister: I remember the occasion very well and the great trouble that it caused among people who had previously been citizens of those countries.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I recognise—as I am sure every hon. Member does, the special position of the Leader of the Opposition, but may I put it to you that it cannot be right, in the interests of all Back Benchers, that the spokesman for the Leader of the Opposition in this case presumed on his position to intervene four times in question?
In no way do I seek to complain that you rightly give preferential treatment to the Leader of the Opposition, but I hope that you will accept, that he will accept and that all Members of the House will accept, that to preserve his special position he should manage it with restraint and with regard for other hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that I have often said that special latitude is given to the Leader of the Opposition and to his spokesman. To-day, because it was the last moment, I


called one hon. Member from the Government Benches after time because I thought it was the fair thing to do.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Stoddart: On a point of order. I hope that I may have your guidance, Mr. Speaker. On 17 January I tabled a question to the Home Secretary asking how many prosecutions were taken out during 1979 against persons for failing to have a dog licence. I was rather surprised to receive a reply from the Home Department saying that this was a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Nevertheless, since I trusted the Home Department implicitly I decided to wait until I received a reply from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That reply came on Thursday 31 January.
So far as England and Wales is concerned, I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department that the information requested for 1979 is not yet available…
That surprised me since the Home Department had said that it was not responsible for prosecutions.
I therefore decided that I would table a question to the Prime Minister, so that she might get an iron grip on the two Departments and knock their heads together to get some sense out of at least one of them. I had her reply yesterday, which said:
Local authorities are responsible for collecting the dog licence fee and are required to keep a register of licence holders. The police are concerned with proceedings with licence evasion. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales have powers to alter the level of the licence fee.
That simply is not good enough. I was refused the opportunity by the Home Department to ask specific questions that affected the interests of my constituents by a transfer of question, which, as far as I can see, should not have happened. I should be most obliged, Mr. Speaker, to have your guidance on this matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to take this opportunity to advise the House first of all that there is a very long list of right hon. and hon. Members who hope to speak in the debate later today. We have now had a time-wasting

exercise, which was not a genuine point of order. Hon. Members should raise with me only those matters that are affected by the Standing Orders of the House. I cannot rule on the issue of an hon. Member's questions being transferred. The House knows that quite clearly. I make it clear to the House also that if hon. Members are not satisfied with answers that they have received they should not raise the matter under the guise of a point of order. They should pursue it with the Minister concerned. I cannot rule on that matter.

JUBILEE BUILDING, COVENT GARDEN

Mr Dobson: I beg to ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment not to list a building of architectural and historic interest—the Jubilee Building in Covent Garden.
It was built at the time of Queen Victoria's Jubilee as part of Covent Garden market and was recently converted into a sports hall.
The future of the site of the building is about to be determined by the Greater London Council, which wishes the building to be demolished and replaced by offices. To list the building would ensure a public inquiry before this sports hall, used by my constituents, could be demolished.
A report in The Guardiantoday states that the Department of the Environment inspector, exercising his professional judgment, recommended that the building should be listed. This recommendation was set aside following representations by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg)—that the issue should be dropped, or it would still be around, and very tricky, for the 1981 GLC elections.
The listing functions of the Secretary of State are semi-judicial in nature and should not be subject to short-term party political considerations. For these reasons I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this matter is urgent, specific and particularly important, as it goes to the heart of the


discharge of quasi-judicial functions by the Secretary of State and would also provide an opportunity to save from vandals and property speculators a useful building of architectural importance.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 o'clock noon today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
The interference by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on political grounds in a quasi-judicial process of determining whether or not to list the Jubilee Market building, in Covent Garden.
I listened with care to the argument advanced by the hon. Gentleman. I have no doubt at all that to him and to his constituency this is an important matter, but as the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reasons for my decision.
I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I totally accept your ruling on my hon. Friend's application under Standing Order No. 9, but as the Secretary of State for the Environment is here and as a most serious allegation has been made—that a quasi-judicial act has been set aside for party political reasons—would it not be helpful if that were dispelled by the Secretary of State's standing at the Dispatch Box now and making clear whether that is true or not?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have had no notice of any such request.

BILLS PRESENTED

BROADCASTING

Mr. Secretary Whitelaw, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Ed-

wards, Mr. Secretary Atkins, Mr. Secretary Carlisle and Mr. Leon Brittan presented a Bill to amend and supplement the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973 in connection with the provision by the Independent Broadcasting Authority of a second television service and otherwise in connection with the functions of the Authority: to establisha Broadcasting Complaints Commission, to require consultation between the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Authority about the scheduling of television programmes in Welsh; and for connected purposes: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 139.]

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (DECLARATION OF PARLIAMENT'S INTENTION)

Mr. Michael Brown, presented a Bill to explain subsection (1) of section 13 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 as amended by subsection (2) of section 3 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 138.]

EMPLOYMENT (No. 2)

Sir Ronald Bell presented a Bill to amend the law concerning industrial relations: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 February and to be printed. [Bill 140.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the motion relating to Community energy situation and nuclear proposals with the substitution of One o'clock or three hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later, for the provisions in paragraph (1)(b) of the Standing Order.—[Mr. Brooke.]

DOMESTIC FUEL REBATES

Mr. David Winnick: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a scheme to assist households on low incomes with the payment of fuel bills by means of rebates.
The aim of my Bill is to bring in a national and comprehensive scheme that will give the necessary assistance to those who are unable, because of low incomes, to meet their fuel bills.
There is no doubt that increasing numbers of people are having difficulty in paying their fuel bills, and none more so than those on low incomes. For such people, keeping their homes adequately heated and finding the money for the fuel bills becomes almost a nightmare.
Last year, for instance, electricity prices went up by about 20 per cent. This year the increase will be larger. As we know, gas prices are due to go up during 1980 by nearly 30 per cent. The price of paraffin, so much used by poorer families, is 50 per cent. higher this year, due to the ending of price controls.
When the Government announced the substantial increase in gas prices they should also have announced a proper and adequate scheme that would give the kind of assistance that should be given to people on low incomes to help them to meet their fuel commitments.
Clearly, retired people on limited incomes need more help then they are now receiving in meeting their fuel bills. Many elderly people in the community—certainly those on limited incomes—find it so difficult to keep their homes warm that they do not use the fuel that they have. The reason is obvious. They are frightened that at the end of the quarter they will have bills that they will be unable to pay. Many keep the heating off. They wrap themselves in blankets. I suggest that is not a dignified way for the community to treat its senior citizens.
Apart from the elderly, there are others who need assistance with fuel bills—the disabled and the handicapped, the single-parent families, often on very limited incomes, and those on low pay with families.
When I raised the matter on an Adjournment debate last July I argued that

the electricity discount scheme should be maintained and extended. The electricity discount scheme, introduced by the previous Labour Administration, gave help to 4 million people on low income. It was a recognition that because of the high charge for electricity special provision should be given to people on low incomes. I was pleased when that scheme was introduced by the previous Labour Government. However, I was displeased when, instead of keeping and extending the scheme, the present Government decided to cancel it. In its place there is a new kind of benefit, which is likely to assist only 345,000 people.
One argument in favour of the new benefit is that the main category likely to be assisted comprises pensioners over 75 years of age who are on supplementary benefit. But there is nothing for those pensioners under 75 who are on supplementary benefit. The Supplementary Benefits Commission has estimated that 70 per cent. of pensioners over 75 on supplementary benefit are already receiving a heating addition—an inadequate one, in my view. However, those people will not receive a penny under the Government's new scheme. The truth is that the Government have cheated those who are most in need of assistance with their fuel bills.
I argue in my Bill that it is necessary to have a system of fuel rebates, or allowances, that will provide comprehensive assistance for the people whom I have in mind. In the early 1960s, when the revaluation of domestic property took place, great concern was expressed, if not by the Government of the day, that many retired people would not be able to pay their rate bills. It wasargued—rightly, in my view—that there should be a system of rate rebates. After a great deal of pressure, a rate rebate system was introduced, and it continues now. There is no controversy over rate rebates. My argument is simple; if it is right to have rate rebates and rent allowances for people on low incomes, it must be equally right to have a system of fuel rebates for those who clearly cannot—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he must not make the speech that he would make if the House gave him permission to bring in his Bill. He must make a speech justifying the Bill.

Mr. Winnick: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My aim is to bring in such a scheme to provide the assistance that I believe is necessary. Fuel poverty is a blight in this country. Millions of our fellow citizens cannot make ends meet when it comes to paying their fuel bills. The type of hardship that I have described must be ended. I see no reason or justification for allowing that type of poverty to continue in our midst. That is why I request permission to bring in my Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, Mr. Stanley Newens, Mr. Laurie Pavitt, Mr. George Park, Mr. Stan Thorne, Mr. Clive Soley and Mr. Kevin McNamara.

DOMESTIC FUEL REBATES

Mr. David Winnick accordingly presented a Bill to provide for a scheme to assist households on low incomes with the payment of fuel bills by means of rebates: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 March and to be printed. [Bill 141.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND LAND (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I have not selected the amendment on the Order Paper.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I do not wish to inconvenience you or the House, but you may recall that at the end of Question Time the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science said that an answer sought by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) would be given later in the day in written form. This caused certain disquiet in the House. I was all the more surprised, therefore, to find on entering the Tea Room that the Evening Standard has a full report of precisely what the Government will be saying in the form of a written answer later this afternoon. It seems an extraordinary denial of the rights of the House that the press has the details of the answer before the House has been permitted to see it.

Mr. Speaker: All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I have no control over what the Government give to the press or what the Opposition give to the press. It is not a matter on which I am able to rule.
I propose to operate the 10-minute rule from 7 pm until 9 pm. I must warn the House that, even then, it will be very hard to call everyone who wishes to be called.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I do not want to underestimate the importance of this Bill on local government and local democracy. Nor do I want to understate the scale of what it proposes. In a number of ways, it challenges long established habits and attitudes. It encourages the more effective use of resources, the creation of a better understanding within local communities—councillors, officials and electors—of the opportunities and options they face,


and a more open relationship between central and local government.
Changes of this nature, challenging as they do many deeply held convictions, cannot expect to lack controversy. They are overdue in any circumstances, but in the economic circumstances of today they are essential. I start with the present regime of central control over local government.
A statutory framework is first approved by Parliament to give duties, powers and discretions to local government. But, from that moment on, by circular, by project control, by the refusal to sanction expenditure, and by borrowing limit, the central Government impose a detailed control at incalculable expense on the opportunities of local government. This web of detailed control is little understood, rarely examined, but its existence gives central Government the most comprehensive and detailed control over virtually any and every significant choice that, in theory, is the prerogative of local government.
It is perfectly true that central government provide 61 per cent. of local government current expenditure. But the very system of distributing this £8 billion a year compounds the problems to which I refer, by rewarding those who spend more at the expense of those who spend less and by allocating the money by methods that few people understand.
Finally, local authorities operate in a financial climate that gives no indication of the available underused capital resources, principally land, that they own and that could be better used. There is little comparative information that could enable councillors or ratepayers to judge their council's performance against that of a similar council.
No one in this House and very few in local Government challenge the right of central Government to set priority for overall policy. The last Government's Education Bill and our sale of council houses are both controversial examples of that fact. Central Government has to set the frontiers. But, once those frontiers are set, we want to enhance the opportunities of local government to carry out those responsibilities that are theirs. The first general objective of the Government is to pull back in many areas from detailed interference with local

government discretion. As an example of this intention, my Department has issued only 39 circulars and circular letters in nine months compared with 222 in the last 12 months of Labour Government. Part I of this Bill relaxes a substantial number of detailed controls.
We examined, as a Government, nearly 1,000 powers held by central Government over local. In general terms, we did not feel it correct to enhance the rights of local authorities at the expense of the individual. So we kept the 100 or so such powers that would affect this. Fifty more are default provisions and these also remain. Of the remaining powers, we have agreed, in this Bill, or elsewhere, to repeal or remove 300. They vary considerably in importance. Some are very small. Others are significant. What we have announced, in total, adds up to the largest repeal of such powers ever undertaken.
But the real thrust of our removal from detailed control comes in part VIII of the Bill, where we proposed capital ceilings for local authority expenditure.
I must ask the House to step back from the proposals in the Bill for a moment and understand the present arrangements currently in force in connection with capital expenditure. I am often told that there is no need to introduce capital controls because local government has a good record of keeping within present ceilings. But the fact is that central Government detailed controls are so stringent that anything else is virtually impossible. Block borrowing approvals cover local authority plans for personal social services and the locally determined sector. The Home Office has its range of controls. For transport, there is a combination of grant and borrowing approvals.
Under my own Department, in housing, there is a combination of expenditure ceiling and specific borrowing approvals. Before one brick can be laid on the ground, a local authority has to answer up to 100 different questions in form after form. In addition, borrowing approval and subsidy entitlement involve another 80 or so questions. We expect to receive half a dozen plans and, when all of that is carried through to the satisfaction of my officials, an authority is free to proceed.


Parker Morris and cost yardstick standards ensure that not a house is built which has not been looked at in detail by my officials in respect of cost, size and design. That is the background, and words like "freedom" have no part to play in that process.
It is because this Government are drawing back from this web of detailed control upon which they and their predecessors have, for decades, relied that it is necessary to ask what new controls would be needed in the climate of freedom that will consequently emerge. We need to know that local government will still keep within ceilings of capital expenditure. The Bill gives us powers to ensure this.
Authorities will receive annual capital blocks for housing, education, social services, transport and miscellaneous, as they do now. But, having received firm allocations, they will be free to aggregate these allocations into one single block and then to decide their own priorities for expenditure as between services.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarvon) rose—

Mr. Heseltine: The annual allocation will carry with it automatic borrowing approval. In addition, capital receipts can supplement allocations, and 50 per cent. of housing capital receipts may be used for any capital purpose.
Housing services especially benefit. The abolition of housing project control restores to authorities the freedom to decide what sort of houses to build, and at what cost, to meet local needs. Parker Morris and cost yardstick as we know them will no longer apply. Authorities will no longer be caught between prescribed standards and costs. Government will intervene only by use of reserve powers in instances of flagrant extravagance that the taxpayer cannot fairly be asked to support, or to prevent building of an unacceptably low quality having regard to the practice of other local authorities or the private sector.
There are a number of further points. Law and order services will not be included in the new system.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that to determine a fair provision of capital allocation to local authorities he will need a tremendous number of bureau-

crats, and a method of assessing the needs in the localities and balancing them against his relaxation of the restrictions on local authorities? Bearing in mind that local authorities in total have kept within 5 per cent. of the White Paper capital expenditure forecast over the past five years, does the right hon. Gentleman regard that exercise as worth while?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) could not have been listening to what I was saying. The reason why local authorities keep within 5 per cent. of the total is that the central Government machine is so detailed that they have no choice. It is because we are drawing back from those detailed controls and introducing a new system of ceiling controls that it will be necessary to deliver, in the new climate of freedom and discretion, the same close proximity to totals that we have experienced in the past.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Heseltine: I have a long speech to make, and many hon. Members wish to speak. Looking back over the past two occasions on which I have addressed the House, when I have given way to Opposition Members, their interruptions have added about one-third to the length of time for which I intended to speak. In giving way to the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer), I ask hon. Members not to make too many interruptions.

Mr. K. J. Woolmer: If the Minister says that local authorities have kept within Government guidelines for their capital spending because of central controls over loan approvals, can he confirm that local council financing of capital spending by revenue contributions from the local rate did not cause any significant problems? In that case, why does he intend to prevent local councils using rate contributions to finance the local capital needs, so denying local councils the flexibility to use their own funds to respond to local needs?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. We are seeking control over the level of capital ceilings. No one questions that there should be such an overall level of capital control. The only question is whether the control


should be detailed or open by having known published totals and allowing local authorities flexibility in operating within them. That position is absolutely clear. I am sure that when he looks at what I have said the hon. Gentleman will realise that this new discretion to local authorities is far wider than any they have had under any previous Government.
There will still be a need for specific government approval where capital projects could have a regional or national impact. Capital expenditure by parish councils and de minimis expenditure on equipment below £5,000 by all authorities will be outside the new controls. Individual authorities will enjoy a 10 per cent. tolerance carried forward or back on a year-to-year basis and will be able to vire with other authorities within a county areas. The Bill provides a fallback for authorities that exceed their capital ceilings.
In the last resort, should an authority deliberately seek to break the new system, the Government can either remove the new freedoms from that authority specifically or put all authorities back into the present straitjacket. We have chosen the former as the only proper way to protect the overwhelming majority who will observe the new limits faithfully. The Bill provides for a direction to a local authority that has overspent or looks certain to overspend. This is essentially a reserve power, and no directions will be made in respect of marginal or accidental overspending.
It is a common view that the politicians and the electorate know too little of what happens in the bureaucracies that serve them. The House has greatly extended the Select Committee system in recognition of this mood. The Government want local communities—councillors, officials and electors—to know more of the options that face them. In general terms, part II of the Bill enables Parliament to request local authorities to publish information about their activities in such a form that judgments can be made locally about them. Let me give the House just three examples of where I think such information should be available, authority by authority. First, manpower: every three months figures are supplied confidentially by each authority to a central body, the Manpower Watch, showing the total number of employees

that it has in each principal activity. These individual figures are added up and published in total, but they are not published at individual authority level, where they would have real meaning. I believe that these figures should be published.
Secondly, planning: anecdotal comment about the delays in the planning system are commonplace, but facts have been hard to come by. Yet jobs, investment, environmental improvement and wealth creation are intimately tied up in this process. I ask no authority to change the nature of the decisions it takes. But I shall ask authorities to provide for publication details of the time it takes to deal with planning applications, in straightforward tabular form. My Department handles planning appeals. I can see no reason, save in the most extraordinary case, for decisions to take two or even three years to reach. I shall accordingly publish the time taken by my Department in reaching decisions on appeals in broadly the same form as I expect local government to do with planning applications.
Thirdly, housing: in replacing the detailed approval of individual projects with the freer system I have already outlined, I shall expect local authorities to make available to councillors, and to publish, details of housing schemes in a form that will enable the cost, subsidy and value to be judged by those who are expected increasingly to pay for them.
In general, enough comparisons between authorities cannot easily be made. This requires information on a common basis. I do not believe that my proposals will lead to a significant extra cost, because all authorities keep records. It is a question of seeing that the records are in common form and that more of them are open to public inspection. There will be discussions of the detail with the local authority associations and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy before the House is asked to decide on final proposals.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Has any local city council or county council ever denied the Minister's Department any information for which it asked? If not, why does the right hon. Gentleman require to change the law? Is he not in danger of trying to do for local people what local people are perfectly capable of doing for themselves?

Mr. Heseltine: I have not yet been able to persuade the local authority associations to publish details locally of their manpower figures, although I am optimistic that it may be possible to reach agreement on that. Unless there is central co-ordination of the publication of this information it will not happen. I put it to the hon. Gentleman with all respect that within the private sector the House has ensured that there is a range of comparative information about the performance and activity of that part of our society, and it is perfectly reasonable that we should take exactly the same steps where appropriate to ensure that the public sector operates in such a way that its activities can be clearly seen.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Liverpool the planning department and the architect's department recently refused to tell me how many people they employed?

Mr. Heseltine: I know that the whole House in its pursuit of open government will reflect upon my proposals and welcome them.
The Bill provides for a new block grant system to be brought into effect by order of Parliament and similarly for transitional arrangements to apply in 1980–81. The House will know that I set out our proposals in considerable detail on 16 January, when we discussed the rate support grant orders. The new system in no way sets limits to what an authority spends, nor does it fix the level of an authority's rates. Those decisions remain with the authority.
The new system ensures that the high spending authorities do not pre-empt even larger shares of a fixed amount of taxpayers' support away from those that remain within the Government's guidelines. Electors will more easily be able to judge the nature of the decisions being taken by an authority. In addition, the new system ends the present automatic assumption that the more an authority spends the more it pre-empts for itself at the expense of more cost-conscious authorities.
The House has seen how the county share of grant has diminished until this year under such principles. But perhaps the clearest exposition is to be found in

the press release issued by the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) on 15 December 1978 when, as Secretary of State for Transport, he turned down South Yorkshire's transport bid. He said:
It is also important that all counties get a fair share of the limited resources available. If one county absorbs too much of these, others must suffer.
He went on:
But it would have been unfair to give them relatively more money in total than other authorities with similar inner area problems.
That is precisely the position. It is to end the automatic rewarding of high expenditure that the present RSG proposals are designed.
The new arrangements mean that grant support on marginal expenditure is progressively reduced as expenditure rises substantially above the standard levels of authorities with similar economic and social circumstances. No cash is actually removed from an authority, but authorities that wish to pursue abnormally high levels of expenditure will have to bear a much higher proportion of the burden directly through rates or charges rather than at the expense of other authorities. Operational details will be worked out in consultation with the local authority representatives.
The associations themselves have suggested that there may be other means, which they would prefer, to meet the objectives of block grant. They have not yet put forward an agreed alternative that meets our objectives. If they are able to put forward such an alternative I will of course consider it carefully and discuss it with them, but as I have told them, we are doubtful whether a practical alternative exists.

Mr. Jack Straw: While we are on the matter of alternatives to the rating system, will the right hon. Gentleman clarify this matter? Three years ago he told the House that the commitment of his party to abolishing the domestic rating system was one of the wisest political commitments that the Conservatives had ever made. Does he still believe that that is the wisest commitment that he ever made? If so, why is not a proposal to abolish the domestic rating system, rather than one to make it more complicated, included in the Bill?

Mr. Heseltine: Since then, we made a commitment to reduce the levels of income tax. That was even wiser in the circumstances.
The whole future of domestic rating is being considered by the Government, as we made clear in our manifesto. However, today we are dealing with the systems of distributing grant within an existing or revised rate support grant situation and we are not considering the alternatives to the present domestic rate situation.
The Bill also provides for transitional arrangements for the year 1980–81 prior to the working of the new block grant that will be introduced in 1981–82, if Parliament approves. It has been suggested that the powers of the transitional arrangements should be retrospective and arbitrary. The powers are not retrospective because right from the start of this year's arrangements I made the Government's plans known.
In June the Government's expenditure plans for 1980–81 were set out, asking for a further 1 per cent. reduction on the revised targets that we set for 1979–80. The RSG allocations were made conditional on the transitional arrangements. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the Bill a Second Reading. Further, the only power in my hands is to invite Parliament to approve an order introducing the transitional arrangements. It is for Parliament to decide whether it approves the order.
It will be for Parliament to approve the proposals. The arrangements will have to comply with general rules. I expect that these rules will affect very few authorities. However, the House will want to bear in mind that without such arrangements we shall have a continuation of the situation in which the majority of authorities will see resources drift to authorities less responsible and less prudent than themselves.
If anyone in the House feels that Governments have hesitated to go back on their plans once they have been agreed with local government, let me quote from the circular issued on 29 December 1976 asking for cuts in 1977–78. It said:
The Government appreciate that to achieve this, authorities will need to consider a combination of lower staffing levels, less spending on goods and services, and increases in income

from fees, charges, etc.rising at a faster rate than costs.
There is built into the rate support system an element of retrospection. The resource grant is fixed retrospectively. Indeed, the Government announced that they would reduce this year's increase order by £300 million during the course of the current year on the basis that the Government could no longer afford to pay the underlying totals. Of course, the House will be aware that in taking that decision—as it could be suggested, retrospectively—we were acting totally in keeping with the precedent established in 1976, when the previous Government did exactly the same thing.
This Bill is also concerned in a number of ways with the better use of resources. Part III introduces a new regime for direct labour organisations. The case for legislation in this area is overwhelming, and action is long overdue. There are endless examples of overspending and abuses within direct labour organisations. The last Government promised action, and that promise was the only action that we actually got.
Our objective is simply to cut waste and inefficiency. Authorities will have to put their DLO accounts on a sound footing, closely comparable with a commercial undertaking. Unless they can do this they would be better employed using their assets in a more productive area elsewhere. The Labour Party is always calling for more competition, and fairer competition, with the private sector, and can therefore enthusiastically support these proposals in the Bill in this respect.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the object of part III is to ensure that direct labour organisations compete on terms that are neither more nor less favourable than the terms upon which private contractors operate? Will he give undertakings that if in Committee he is satisfied that any of the provisions or restrictions in this part of the Bill impose unfair burdens on direct labour organisations, he will accept amendments and that the regulations that he will have power to introduce will also ensure that there is fairness? In doing so, will he explain to the House why he feels that it would be unfair for direct labour organisations to undertake work outside


the scope of public works? There is profit there, and they are deprived from obtaining that profit.

Mr. Heseltine: It would be wise for the direct labour organisations to prove that they can work effectively within their own areas before we consider whether we should extend the areas in which they trade. The Committee will want to consider the points that the hon. Gentleman raised—as will other hon. Members who are not on the Committee, when we come to the Report stage, if any other issues remain outstanding.
A second area where I believe we can cut out waste is planning. The overlap of jurisdiction of districts and counties on development control contributes to this problem. The Bill will make development control, except in respect of minerals and one or two other instances, a district matter. This will not, however, affect the strategic role of the county. Districts will continue to be obliged to have regard to the structure plan and to refer to me applications which would be substantial departures from the structure plan.
I also intend to reduce the case load of about 500,000 applications to local authorities—by about 20 per cent.—by raising the present limits of development permitted in the general development order. My proposals will include safeguards in sensitive areas such as areas of outstanding natural beauty, the national parks or conservation areas. Clause 63 gives a power to introduce a charging system, which I expect to raise £30 million in a full year. It will be universal, mandatory and simple. I also hope to bring forward shortly a range of other improvements to the planning system.
I have talked about the planning system, and that brings me to the next area of the Bill, which concentrates on better use of resources. One glance at any of our cities and the scale of unused or underused land is evident. But nobody knows just how much there is, although all the evidence is that most of it is owned by the public sector.
The land registers provided for in part X of the Bill are part of the drive to release this land. The provisions will enable the land to be identified. The provisions also give me, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales,

subject to Parliamentary control, a power to direct public bodies to dispose of land entered on a register which is demonstrably surplus to their requirements. I intend to announce shortly where the first registers will be and the size of sites to be registered.
The Bill also repeals the Community Land Act, which has required nearly 200 circulars, guidance notes, directions and statutory instruments. Its administration has cost nearly £15 million and in three years it has provided less than 300 hectares of land for private development in England. Its passing will be unmourned.
The proper role of local authorities in bringing land forward for development is recognised and their powers are clarified in clause 67. The Land Authority for Wales is retained but in future it will operate commercially, free from the doctrine that public ownership is desirable in its own right. The scale of operations will remain roughly at the present level.
The previous Government reduced the population targets for some new towns and the designated areas now contain more land than is needed. The Bill provides for the de-designation of surplus land, but we are going further. This Bill also clarifies present disposal powers and gives the Government power to regulate the pace and direction of the disposals programme.
The final part of the Bill deals with derelict docklands in an exciting and challenging concept—the urban development Corporation. The problem of the inner city areas is stark; there is tragic decay of vast areas which—as in London and Merseyside docklands—were once thriving parts of the country's prosperity. The problems of Merseyside and London are of such scale and national importance that special solutions are needed.
I have made it clear—and I reaffirm today—that the Government intend to set up UDCs with the individual and specific approval of Parliament only in these areas, where single-minded agencies can secure development, bring in the private sector, and secure improvements of benefit to the areas and the country as a whole. There must be no loss of momentum in setting the bodies to work.
The Bill gives wide permissive powers but nothing happens in respect of powers,


boundaries or financial regimes until Parliament considers these matters and approves the necessary orders. That gives the necessary flexibility for the widest possible consultation, particularly with the local authorities, and for the establishment of organisations tailor-made for each local situation.
My UDC proposals have been widely welcomed by many of those with knowledge of the areas concerned. There is much to be done. In the event of this Bill receiving a Second Reading today, I intend to appoint the two chairmen on a shadow basis, so that each can plan now to begin work effectively on vesting day. In respect of Merseyside I am pleased to announce that the chairman of Bibby's, Mr. Leslie Young, has agreed to take the chair and that Sir Kenneth Thompson, leader of the Merseyside county council, has agreed to be deputy chairman.
London offers an even bigger challenge and I am pleased to tell the House that Mr. Nigel Broackes, chairman of Trafalgar House Investments Ltd., has agreed to be shadow chairman. I know that the whole House will be particularly pleased that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has agreed to be deputy chairman. I shall make further announcements shortly.

Mr. Ogden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are any of these appointments paid appointments? Are they offices of profit under the Crown?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): That is not a point of order. It is an interruption.

Mr. Heseltine: This is a major and central Bill in the Government's programme. It is one that seeks better value for money and a range of new opportunities for local government. Of course, the House can sympathise with the dilemma of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) when he decides how to oppose the Bill. He knows that much of the Bill is concerned with getting better value for money from the public sector. His party believes in the extension of the public sector as long as it is not expected to be accountable or efficient. He knows his party promised to reform direct labour organisations but was stopped by Labour authorities with inefficient direct labour

organisations. He knows his party wants more open government, but he is going to resist my proposals for fuller and better information. He knows his party wanted to reform the rate support grant system but that it gave in to the pressure from Labour over spenders. He resents my decision to postpone the rating revaluation because his party has postponed every revaluation it could since the war.
The right hon. Gentleman finds himself in the traditional role of the social democrat, sandwiched between the Labour Party and common sense. For five days a week he preaches moderation and balance from the columns of the serious press. Then, at weekends, he sets off to Labour conferences to get it all out of his system by inciting Labour authorities to rate increases that could reach 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. I cannot understand why he does it. He convinces no one, let alone the extremists in his own party. One of them, the Labour leader of Lambeth, in a rare and wholly uncharacteristic flash of insight, described the right hon. Gentleman's policies this weekend as
a recipe for disaster for the Labour movement".
Who are we to argue?

Mr. Roy. Hattersley: I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for enabling me to win my bet with Councillor Ted Knight that the comment he made on Sunday would be the peroration of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The right hon. Gentleman is nothing if not predictable, as is his Bill.
I want to make it clear at the beginning that the Opposition's objections to the contents of the Bill are reinforced by what I can only describe as our resentment at the form in which it has been presented to us.
Our resentment is the result of four specific facts. First, this is not a single Bill but a number of disparate proposals, each one justifying a Bill of its own, which have been pulled together under a self-contradicting long title which talks simultaneously about extending and reducing controls over local authorities. Because there are so many major issues within one binding, it is almost impossible for my right hon. and hon. Friends to make the sort of Second Reading


speeches that are appropriate. It probably also means that the Government, on their present record, will introduce a guillotine into the Committee stage before we have reached the contentious proposals that are towards the back of the Bill.
Secondly, this is a simple enabling Bill which is more dependent on secondary legislation than any Bill has a right to be. Clause after clause amounts to asking the House to provide the Secretary of State with a power to do what he wants, when he wants and as he wants. Usually the powers that he is given are limited by no more than the most general statement of principle. In some cases—especially the calculations surrounding the unitary grant—the Secretary of State asks for enabling powers to introduce a system which he cannot or will not yet describe to us.
The Secretary of State talked about the operating details, but the operating details are what matters when calculations of rents and services are dealt with, as well as rates and all the other matters for which local authorities are responsible. What the right hon. Gentleman asks us to do is to give him the power to set the scheme of his choice, yet he blandly tells us that it may not be so bad because the power is so wide that if anybody else invents another power which conforms to his prejudices, or another scheme which abides by the rules he sets down, he will introduce that instead. The idea that the House should be asked to give any Secretary of State, let alone the present one, such wide discretion in clause after clause is intolerable.
Thirdly, the Bill contains proposals which, by any normal understanding of the words or any sensible use of English, are retrospective. I want to return to the point later in my speech, but, since the right hon. Gentleman was specific in saying that no retrospection was involved, let me put it to him in the simplest possible terms. Councillors all over the country are entitled under the law today to fix their local rates according to their judgment as to the necessities of the area that they represent. Yet if they exercise that legal right in a way that does not conform with the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, a Bill is to be passed which, in November, punishes them for exercising

a right which was legal when they exercised it.
Does not that come under the definition of "retrospective"? I think that no one who understands these matters can believe that the right hon. Gentleman's analysis of the problem is anything like accurate.
Fourthly, and what is perhaps in a sense the most fundamental objection of all to the Bill's form, the Bill is described fraudulently. The Association of District Councils—Tory-controlled—says:
We cannot accept the claim of the Secretary of State for the Environment that this package of financial and other measures offers a new deal to local government and…is a major advance in local freedom and local responsibility.
No one else can accept it, either.
The Association of County Councils—not Tory-controlled but Tory-dominated—says that it believes that the Bill
must inevitably result in greater control by central Government notwithstanding the stated intention of the Long Title to relax controls.
I admit that in part there are certainly some relaxations of the onerous burdens placed on local authorities. For instance, if the Bill is passed, an urban authority will in future be allowed the right to fix such reasonable rates as it thinks proper for the hire of pleasure boats on water-ways and other places. I am sure that there will be much rejoicing in town halls that that is to come about, but that hardly compensates for what the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—Tory-controlled—says would be the major effects of the Bill. Sir Godfrey Taylor, who was knighted for his services to local government—not to the Conservative Party, because it was not a political honour—and is a member of the Conservative Party of long standing, was here in the House of Commons yesterday drumming up opposition to the Bill at a meeting upstairs. His association described the major effects of the Bill in this way:
It would in effect mean that the Government specified the amount of expenditure and rate to be levied for every authority in the country.
The Opposition take the view that a Bill of this importance should be given a great deal more scrutiny than the present parliamentary timetable permits. It was certainly the view of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends that the entire Bill should be committed to a


Committee of the whole House for proper discussion. I take the rather more modest view that clause 6, which concerns the change of functions, powers and roles between local authorities and national Government, should have a Committee stage on the Floor of the House. But, because we are reasonable people, we suggested yesterday, through the usual channels, simply that three clauses, the three retrospective clauses, which provide punishments for councillors who may today do things which are legal but be punished for them later, should be properly considered by the House in Committee of the whole House. The Government were not prepared to accede to even that limited request, and the Opposition are not empowered under the Standing Orders to move that a limited amount of the Bill be considered by the whole House in Committee.
Therefore, if the Bill gets a Second Reading this evening, we propose to move that the entire Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House. I have no doubt that those guardians of our freedom who these days sit on the Tory Benches will walk slavishly into the Lobby with their party leaders and the Secretary of State not only to vote for a retrospective Bill, an enabling Bill and a Bill which changes the balance of power between local authorities and national Government, but also to make sure that it does not get proper discussion on the Floor of the House.
We at least make our position clear. Part of the Bill has such important constitutional consideration and so much constitutional effect that we believe that it ought to get much better consideration than the present programme allows. I have talked about constitutional consideration because much of the Bill, perhaps the whole of the Bill, is concerned with local authority autonomy. I want to make my own position on that subject absolutely clear.
Of course, I accept that local government does not, cannot and should not possess powers which are intrinsic to itself. The local government authorities of this country, urban and county authorities, possess what powers they are given by Government; and those powers that the Government give, the Government can take away. But if the powers that exist are suddenly subject to an arbitrary shift

and an arbitrary change, if the balance is suddenly swung dramatically away from town and county halls, if they lose their rights and Whitehall steadily increases its controls, I believe that democracy is deeply damaged by that process.
I know that very many Conservative Members believe that, too They have been part of the discussions with the Association of County Councils and with the local authority associations in general, in which it has been generally agreed that it is a bad thing for local authorities to have powers snatched away from them in a way which undermines local democracy, as many people of this country believe it works best for the people of individual regions.

Mr. Michael Latham:: Did the right hon. Gentleman believe in that principle when he was a member of the Government who took away local authorities' powers to determine their own education structures?

Mr. Hattersley: That question is asked during every such debate. I give exactly the same answer. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will remember it for next time. Since 1870 it has been established that education is a national service locally administered. That was Mr. Forster's view of education. It was Lord Butler's view of education. It was written into the preamble to the Education Act 1944. That distinguishes the education service form other local government services. That is the traditional, historic and generally accepted difference between the two things.
But I want to talk about the operation of the Bill in relation to local autonomy and the powers of the local community, particularly in respect of part XVI, which will enable the Secretary of State to set up urban development corporations and urban development areas.
The Secretary of State—in, I am sure, one of those slips of the tongue which he corrects from time to time—said that this part of the Bill was about dock-lands. It is not about docklands. It is about lands in general. It may be that the Secretary of State for the time chooses to use the Bill simply for two specific areas, but the powers that he gives to himself and his successors can be applied anywhere in the country.
Clause 108 will enable the Secretary of State of the day to
designate any area of land as an urban development area.
It gives him the most wide powers of designation. It says:
If the Secretary of State is of opinion that It is expedient in the national interest to do so, he may by order…designate any area of land
for that purpose. When he does so designate the area of land, he removes from the local, democratically elected public representatives their rights over housing, over land and over planning, and he appoints in their place nominees of his own who are given the most extraordinary arbitrary powers.
Clause 110 describes what those powers are and what the nominees are entitled to do, which includes
anything necessary or expedient for the purposes of the object or for purposes incidental to those purposes.
It means, in fact, that the Secretary of State can set up such an area, remove democratic control, place control in the hands of his nominees and give them the most extraordinary discretions—certainly discretions to ignore the normal town planning—

Mr. Heseltine: I can do none of those things under the Bill. Only Parliament can do them.

Mr. Hattersley: Parliament's opportunity comes after a 90-minute debate and a single vote in this House and in the other place. That is the opportunity that Parliament possesses before it gives to a body of unelected men the power to do
anything necessary or expedient for the purposes of the object or for purposes incidental to those purposes.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hattersley: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to finish this point, with which I think he will probably not disagree.
It think that it is possible to argue about the economic merits of the Secretary of State's proposals. My hon. Friends will argue—and I shall agree with them—that the interests of the area, the rights and possibilities of developing the area and the prospects of getting dockland moving again are being inhibited by this

new proposal, which is holding up developments which would take place were it not for the uncertainty that the Secretary of State has caused by saying that he insists on starting again from scratch.
Whilst I concede at once that there are two economic arguments, can there be two democratic arguments about this? If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have any doubts about the propriety of giving the Secretary of State such powers, let me remind them that under this Bill a future Labour Secretary of State could actually set up the urban development corporation of Lewisham, Bromley, or Wandsworth and Merton, or Solihull and Sutton Coldfield, or South Birmingham and Solihull, and give remarkable powers to nominees in those areas. My right hon. Friend might even become the actual chairman of ours. We might have Mr. Ted Knight as the deputy chairman, since he figures so largely in the Secretary of State's mind. We might actually get some houses that Lewisham needs to have built in Bromley; some of the houses that South Birmingham needs to have built in Solihull; and some of the development necessary for Wandsworth in Merton.
I am not suggesting that we should use any of these arbitrary powers, but are the guardians of our liberty on the Conservative Benches going to vote future Secretaries of State the right to do such a thing?

Mr. Guy Barnett: The point my right hon. Friend is making is, I believe, very apposite, because the Greater London Council is now divesting itself of its strategic housing role, I believe, and I would have thought that the temptation to a future Labour Secretary of State to set up urban development corporations in all the outer London boroughs to provide homes for the overcrowded inner London boroughs would be very great.

Mr. Hattersley: I hope my hon. Friend will not tempt me to commit the Opposition to such a policy, although I see its attractions.
The point I am trying to make is related not to its development merits but to its constitutional demerits and whether any Government should be given such powers by Parliament. I hope that hon. Members opposite, including the few of


them who have actually read the Bill, will consider that point very carefully.

Mr. Spearing: Mr. Spearing rose—

Mr. Hattersley: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I must take refuge in the point made by the Secretary of State. This is a long debate and a complicated subject. Many people want to make speeches, and I think I should proceed to the end so that speeches may be made from my own and opposite Back Benches rather than prolong my own speech.
I move on by referring to the points made by the Secretary of State about his proposals for capital control. He spoke of them so warmly that I almost forgot that they were not his own idea. He spoke of them as if this were something that he had been wanting to do all his life. They are, of course, quite different from his original capital control proposals. This is the one area in relation to local government in which he was persuaded to change his mind. However, the conversion was so complete that he spoke of them today as if there had never been a better possible idea in the world. I do not think that the present ideas, now that the Secretary of State has been persuaded to change his mind, are all that bad. I believe in some ways they offer an extra freedom, which I am glad to see local authorities possess.
What disturbs me and local authorities too about them is the discretionary right possessed by the Secretary of State to announce that one or another local authority is not conforming to the rules and therefore is to be subject to a much more stringent safeguard. As the rules now stand, the blocks are allocated and there is a 10 per cent. discretion on each one, which I take it is intended to allow for the inevitable overlap between one year and another when contracts take longer than was intended. But if there is constant overspending, the Secretary of State may remove the 10 per cent. discretion and may require authorities to make specific application for individual capital projects.
I also understand—no doubt the Minister of State will correct me if I am wrong—that, if that new imposition is made, the local authorities which still go over the figures stipulated by the Government will be behaving in a way that is ultra vires and will be subject to legal penal-

ties. I think it is quite intolerable that the Secretary of State should be able to put local authorities in that position, particularly when, by his own admission, they may face a situation in which a contract, through no fault of theirs, moves from year to year.

Mr. Heseltine: No, no.

Mr. Hattersley: I knew the Secretary of State would say that, because in his opening speech he said "I will exercise these extra onerous arbitrary powers only if the behaviour of the council has been to flout deliberately the 10 per cent. ceiling." But what is wholly intolerable in a democratic society is that rules governing councils are determined by the Secretary of State's personal judgment about their motives. Time and time again—and it will appear even more forcibly when we talk of revenue control—the Bill gives the Secretary of State not only the right to make his own decisions about the performance of local authorities, but their performance is judged by his opinion of their intentions, which seems to me to be fundamentally bad law. [An HON. MEMBER: "He said so."] The right hon. Gentleman said that, but as I heard him speak and as I wrote it down, although I know that Hansard traditionally has trouble in writing down the contentious parts of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I believe that the word "deliberately" will appear. That is what he said and that is, of course, what he meant.
I turn from that to the second area of extended control—that is, the extended control over revenue. Does the Minister for Housing and Construction wish to say anything?

Mr. Heseltine: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My colleague the Minister for Housing and Construction was originally making this interruption, because inadvertently—I hope it was inadvertently—it was his feeling that the right hon. Gentleman was casting aspersions upon the technical competence of Hansard. [Interruption.] I know that the right hon. Member would not have intended to do that and that he would want to make quite clear that he was not doing so.

Mr. Hattersley: No. I make it absolutely clear that what I said about the


error in Hansard last week was in no way intended to reflect on the Hansard authorities. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear."]
I return now to the revenue aspects of the Bill. They have four essential features. The first is that the Government will assess each authority's spending need. That assessment of need is euphemistically called "standard expenditure", and it is to be calculated in a way which the Secretary of State has not yet thought fit to reveal to us. Secondly, there will be a calculation of standard rate poundage calculated not for each individual authority but for each class of authority, and then there will be a computation of the amount of rate receipts likely to be obtained by each authority, according to the standard rate poundage. Then the standard rate poundage will be deducted from the standard need and the Government will meet the balance of the two. If the authority spends more than the balance, the Government may meet some of the cost of the excess, but, as I understand it—andI am glad to see that the Secretary of State is nodding his head in agreement—to a diminishing degree, in order that there should be a deterrent.
I know no one outside the Department of the Environment—and the Secretary of State will know better than I that it is not even a unanimous view within the Department of the Environment—who believes in the Government's ability to assess the spending needs of individual local authorities. I ask the Secretary of State whether he has any idea how the assessment is to be made. We all know that he rejects regression analysis as a method. He never speaks on these subjects without dealing with what he regards as the inefficiency and unsuitability of that scheme. How is he going to calculate the needs of the various authorities? May I ask him or the Minister of State when he winds up the debate to be very clear in answering a question related to that point? Will he impose a method of calculating the needs of authorities if he cannot obtain the agreement of the local authority associations for a scheme that they regard as equitable, rational and fair?
There is a very great fear in the local authority associations amongst Conservative as well as Labour members, based partly on previous actions and previous statements of the Secretary of State, that the formula will simply represent his arbitrary prejudices of how local authorities ought to spend their money. The Association of County Councils is a body on which there is one Labour council. I do not deny the ability of the councillors of Durham to sway colleagues in bodies in which they take membership, but I think that the Association of County Councils, with 21 Conservative members to the one Labour representative, ought to be taken seriously on the Tory Benches. The Association of County Councils says that it fears that the new scheme will enable the Government to adopt any grant distribution pattern that they please. I had hoped that some Tory Members would agree that it is intolerable for the Secretary of State to say that he wants the power to adopt any grant mechanism that he pleases but cannot say what it is today. He says that he is interested to hear other people's ideas about what it may be, but he wants the power to do exactly what he wants and that is what he asks the House to provide.
It is impossible to calculate the needs of individual authorities in a way that is both efficient and honest. The Secretary of State puts himself into an appalling dilemma in committing himself to construct such a formula when no one has the faintest idea of how that formula can be made up.
The other half of the calculation can be made more honestly, but it can hardly be made more sensibly. Irrespective of our mutual failings in dealing with rate revaluation—and I include my party—if there is a system of rate distribution and of grant distribution which is in part dependent upon rateable values it is nonsensical to base it on rateable values which are 10 or more years old. It is nonsensical to say to the boroughs that the Government will share out the money according to rateable values when the rateable values might have been appropriate in 1973 but certainly are not appropriate in 1981.

The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): Why did not the Labour Government do something about it?

Mr. Hattersley: The Minister should know better. We did not do anything because we were not running the proposed scheme. That may have escaped the Minister's attention. In addition, we said that a Labour Secretary of State should have the power not only to have a review when he chose instead of once every five years but to have a partial review. If the Bill is passed, the Secretary of State will be able to order a rate revaluation whenever he wants one. It will not have to be a complete rate revaluation. He can choose any group or class of hereditament. That is a wholly arbitrary power. The Secretary of State can decide to revalue domestic properties but not houses. He can decide to revalue a particular class of building but not another.
I agree with the three local authority associations which say in unison that if revaluation is constructed in a way which allows the Secretary of State to pick and choose those parts which are revalued and those which are not, the honesty, the objectivity and the visible impartiality of the rate valuation system will be damaged crucially and perhaps totally destroyed.
Bad as the actions are to be taken in the name of the block grant, the proposals for the transitional measures are worse still and the worst of all. The Secretary of State, in his normal bland manner, said that the object of the unitary grant is to allow local authorities to determine the rates which they think to be right for their area, even if they receive less Government assistance. The object of the transitional measures is to coerce certain local authorities into holding down their rates to a figure stipulated by the Secretary of State. For reasons which the Secretary of State has thought it right not to reveal to us, he has decided that outside London the appropriate rate this year is 119p.

Mr. King: That is not right.

Mr. Hattersley: Perhaps the Minister will explain what the 119p is, how it was arrived at and whether the rumours passed from his Department to certain local authorities that it is soon to be revised are true or false. The Secretary of State has said that any local authority which charges a rate above that figure may be in trouble. The trouble will be that they will receive a smaller share of

the increase order and the rate support grant than otherwise.
The Secretary of State said something else. He said that he will allow a margin of error. He will not say what that margin of error is—another example of his arbitrary power. He says that when withholding money he will judge according to a number of criteria. London is not subject to the 119p rule. In the operation of the rules of simplicity in which the Secretary of State believes so strongly, the standard uniform rate for London, according to the Department of the Environment, is:
ES-N-B / NS X P
Apparently it is essential that local authorities in London do not exceed that rate poundage.
The transitional arrangements will result in certain councils being penalised if they go beyond the margin which the Secretary of State stipulates as being appropriately above 119p. How will he judge whether they are to be penalised? I asked the Secretary of State that question during the rate support grant debate. The House will know that two Hansards have to be consulted because the first was corrected. The first Hansard of 16 January 1980 stated that he would judge according to their spending and to their rates. The correction, which appeared on 17 January, which the Secretary of State was kind enough to confirm, was that he would judge according to their rate poundage, their spending and "speeches". If the right hon. Gentleman meant "spending and rate poundage" and "speeches" was a slip of the tongue, he has only to say so. I make more slips of the tongue than most and I shall forget about it if it was a slip of the tongue. If it was not a slip of the tongue, it is a matter of great importance. In this country we have not reached a time when councils and councillors are penalised not because of what they do but because of what they say.
It is extraordinary for a Secretary of State to announce that men and women are to be penalised for their opinions. That great guardian of our public liberties, Lord Denning, has nothing to say on this subject. However, local Labour authorities in Leicester on Saturday were unanimous that we should give Lord


Denning an opportunity to adjudicate on this issue. I assure the Secretary of State that if there is the slightest suspicion that the increase order is being withheld from councils because of councillors' speeches, all the necessary and proper legal processes will be used. Since I am in a benevolent mood, I say to the right hon. Gentleman again that if he wants to say that the word "speeches" was an error nobody will be more pleased than my right hon. and hon. Friends and the matter can be forgotten.

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but the House has covered this ground. There was a question about whether the original Hansard report of my reply to a question was accurate. As the House will remember, I said that in my view the original report left out the word "speeches". We established our position clearly. I used the word "speeches" and I said that I used it. In the context of the decisions and the speeches, I meant it.

Mr. Hattersley: I have done my best for the Secretary of State. He must not expect me to bring in the meat pie with the file inside when the time comes.
I turn to several other matters which require a moment of the House's attention. They deserve more than that, but because of the nature of the Bill they cannot be given more time. In all quarters of local government there is unanimous opposition to the Bill's major provisions. However, all quarters of local government will want to thank the Secretary of State for implementing the major proposals of the Robinson committee. We did not do that. It is ironic that a Bill which severely diminishes the powers of local government should acknowledge that many councillors may make a considerable sacrifice by spending time in county and town halls. I am glad that that is provided for.
I am particularly glad that the services of major chairmen are to be assisted under the terms of the Bill. There are other important parts of the Bill—although in the context of other issues they may seem minor—on which my hon. Friends and I would like to comment, such as the charges to be levied for planning applications and the repeal of section 8 of the Allotments Act 1925,

which appears in schedule 5. We shall be forced to raise those matters in Committee because the Bill prevents us from raising them on the Floor of the House.
There are two remaining issues to which I should like to refer. The first is direct labour. I say to the Secretary of State, who anticipated my opinion on the subject—rather rashly, as is his wont—that I have no doubt about the necessity for direct labour organisations to be run efficiently. Equally, I have no doubt that most of them are run efficiently. Most local authority direct building organisations obtain their major contracts through open competition with private builders. They obtain those contracts despite the extra costs incurred in providing security for their employees, in providing safety measures, and in training young craftsmen. Those extra costs are rarely borne by private contractors.
Twenty years ago I was privileged to be the chairman of a direct labour organisation. We constantly competed in the open market against Wimpey, Terson, Laing and Gleeson. We obtained the contracts because we offered the lowest price, and when we completed the work below our contract figure we gave back the money to the local authority rather than keep the profits. Most local authorities' direct labour departments will be able to compete adequately under the terms of the Bill.
I share the view that since we want direct labour departments to compete with private builders, we must make sure that they do so properly. I vividly remember that they were highly successful in Sheffield in obtaining private contracts in open tender, against private companies. We regretted that we could not just move our equipment across the road to build a private store or any other sort of private building. We had to take cranes and machinery to the other end of the city. I want the competition to be fair and genuine. I want private and public companies to compete, but I believe that more often than not the public sector will win, which will be a credit to it.
It is expensive nonsense to expect public works departments' direct labour organisations to go through the long bureaucratic process of controlling repairs and maintenance. I fear that the right hon. Gentleman has deep prejudices


about the building industry and that he believes that the public sector is usually inefficient and that the private sector is the paragon of all commercial values. I should like him to visit Birmingham—ideally before May, when there will no longer be a Conservative majority—and see what is happening to private builders in my constituency who are asked to carry out repairs and maintenance work. They are leaving the work half done while they move on to more remunerative jobs, to the enormous inconvenience and sometimes to the danger of the inhabitants.
We shall press for the sensible use of direct labour, and we have no doubt that many authorities will be able to demonstrate how sensibly it is used already.
I should like to comment on the Community Land Act. This is the fourth occasion this century that Conservative Governments have repealed Acts which provide that the community receives some of the profits that accrue to private landlords as a result of community activities. The Liberals attempted to do so 50 years ago. The Conservatives repealed that legislation. This is our third attempt, and the third repeal. I am delighted that the Land Authority for Wales remains—a fact which the Secretary of State could not even bring himself to tell the House.

Mr. Heseltine: I must help the right hon. Gentleman in case Hansard does not record the situation. I said specifically that the Land Authority for Wales will continue. I am not too worried that the right hon. Gentleman did not hear that. He has not listened to any other part of my speech either.

Mr. Hattersley: If it will make the right hon. Gentleman look any happier than he has looked for most of the afternoon, I shall beg his pardon for the fourth time. I am delighted that he referred to the success of the Land Authority for Wales. That is a credit to his open-mindedness and his objectivity. When the Labour Party is returned to power, we propose to extend the success of the Land Authority for Wales into England and beyond.
If a private landlord, through no industry, effort or activity of his own, suddenly discovers that the community has changed the use to which his land is put, it is

palpably wrong that he should receive the enormous benefit and bonus rather than that the community should enjoy the fruits of its own decision. We must find a way in which the betterment of land will be to the credit and advantage of the whole community rather than to the person who temporarily and fortuitously has the good luck to own that land.
That is best achieved by substantial sectors of land being taken into public ownership. That would make it appreciably more difficult for a future Conservative Government to repeal such an Act. Some method of recognising and representing the community's interest must be found—and found it will be. I do not expect it to be found by the right hon. Gentleman. His entire Bill is a manifestation of the fact that he is not concerned with the community's interests. He is concerned with two interests, the commercial interest and his obsession with centralism—government run from Whitehall, at the discretion of the Secretary of State, according to his judgment and his rules. For that reason above all others, we shall vote against the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the first speaker from the Back Benches, I remind the House that a great number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak in this important debate. The 10minute limit on speeches will operate from 7 pm until 8.50 pm, and I hope that it will perhaps operate before then.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: I offered some critical observations on the first version of the Bill during the debate on the executive and public bodies on 10 December 1979. This revised version shows a welcome reduction from 288 pages to 210 pages, including no fewer than 105 pages of schedules. It still compares unfavourably in length with the 146 pages of legislation, including the Finance Act, with which the reforming Parliament of 1912 was content. In those days Parliament had shorter Sessions and fewer Committees, but it spent twice as much time debating public expenditure.
It is a happy chance that the Bill was mistakenly introduced into the House of Lords in the first instance. However, the fact that this revised version contains some worthwhile modifications only serves.


to fortify me in the opinion that there should be some form of pre-legislation procedure, which would enable the House to express a view on the general principles before Second Reading, which offers no chance of exploring amendments before the Committee stage. As I said in the procedure debate on 2 February 1976, if the Community Land Act had been introduced as a draft Bill we should at least have got rid of the incredible and replaced it by the unacceptable. At least some of the absurdities would have been removed. I also advocated during that debate that when the House considered major policy changes in relation to a matter such as London's docklands, there should be a preliminary consideration of what was involved.
In spite of the slimming process that it has undergone, the Bill contains too many Bills rolled up into one measure. There is far too much reliance on enabling provisions, and there is certainly too much for anyone—especially in 10 minutes—tocover in any way the matters raised in the Bill. I am very much concerned about the planning provisions, for example, but there will be no time to speak about that subject.
Those of us who read the Local Government Chronicle will know that it is by no means a vehicle for extreme expressions of opinion, but what it has to say this week is this:
The revised local government Bill is a curate's egg of which the edible parts are spoilt by provisions which, to correctly pursue the metaphor, can only be described as stinking.
I warmly welcome the abolition of the Community Land Act 1975, which has proved, as many of us forecast, a costly and futile exercise. I also warmly welcome the possibility of creating new corporations to regenerate urban areas, but I incline to the view that, as drafted, the Bill is too wide in its provisions. I am not impressed, from long experience, by reliance upon the so-called affirmative resolution procedure.
I am much more doubtful about the wisdom of the financial provisions of the Bill as they stand. I refer particularly to the new unitary grant system and the capital spending controls. If these are not substantially changed, I fear that the Secretary of State will find that he has opened a can of worms—and a can of rather fat and costly worms at that.
This is a Bill that is intended, according to the first sentence of the preamble, to
Relax controls over local government".
No doubt there is considerable merit in what the Secretary of State has had to say about that. The proposals in part I and the first batch of schedules are very good—as far as they go. I am glad to see the relaxation of Whitehall control over such matters as mortuaries and slaughterhouses and fees for tests under the Rag Flock and Other Filling Materials Act 1951. But these provisions pale into insignificance beside the new financial controls that are now envisaged.
No one, I am sure, will dispute the need for Government control over the totality of national public expenditure—including, necessarily, that of local authorities. So I do not quarrel with the Government's general objective, bearing in mind, for example, that the total contribution by national taxpayers to local government in the London area alone in 1977–78 was £1,609 million. But I share very strongly the anxieties which have been expressed by all the local authority associations—and I have never known them to be in such a measure of agreement—about the way in which the Government propose to exercise their control.
Like the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I am glad that the Government have modified the original proposals to omit the system whereby an authority would, in effect, have been prevented from making any payment in respect of capital expenditure without the consent of the Secretary of State.
Equally welcome is the decision not to make expenditure by parish or community councils count against the expenditure allocation of district and county councils. It is a good thing that there has been this little pause between the first Bill and the second. There has been some improvement, but the Bill still contains proposals which are not merely objectionable but will, I submit, prove to be unworkable.
With regard to the central Government we know that there has never been any distinction, regrettably, between capital and revenue spending. Because it all


comes out of the Consolidated Fund, it is all treated as though it were revenue. It has always been one of my complaints about the Treasury that it cannot tell the difference between above and below the line; it cannot tell the difference between capital and revenue; and it cannot tell the difference between investment and consumption. It budgets only in terms of annual packages.
Trying to reconcile the pattern of local government expenditure, extending over more than one year, with an annual allocation, as my own Northumberland county council has pointed out, will be "a nightmare".
I hope that the Government will heed the advice that they have received from the local authority associations and either exclude direct financing from the rates from control under the new system or, perhaps preferably, use a mechanism to control the amount which can be borrowed. That would be just as effective and much more in line with present practice.
I turn now to the new rate support grant, which involves replacement of the needs and resources element of the present grant by a single block grant, adjustable at the discretion of the Secretary of State. I think that it is too wide a discretion in any circumstances. I know from my experience that the present system is far from ideal. It is very complex. I used to say that to sort out all the factors that we were feeding into the administrative machine required a computer so sophisticated that it would demand, when we put the question to it, "First sacrifice a goat."
I am not defending all the aspects of the present system. It is complex but not as complex, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, as the basic proposal in the Bill. As the Association of County Councils has said, the criticism of the present system is concerned with fairness, not with the ability or otherwise to influence the national total of local spending.
As to fairness, it will probably never be possible to satisfy everyone. When I settled the rate support grant, I was criticised by the cities for giving them too little and by the county councils for giving the cities too much. Since then, the Labour Government in every year tilted the balance against the rural areas, so that the rural deprivation is perhaps

now the most serious social problem that we face.
But all that is a matter of judgment. It can be settled within the framework of the existing system. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the weakness of the present method of assessment of the needs of local areas is that, because it relates retrospectively to expenditure actually incurred, it tends to reward extravagant authorities at the expense of thrifty ones.
My authority, the Northumberland county council, is a thrifty authority. One would have thought, therefore, that it would welcome the Bill, but it does not. The effect of the new Bill is to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut and to penalise everyone in order to deal with a problem which, although we know it exists, could be dealt with in some other way.
I well understand the Government's desire to ease the present links between a local authority's spending demands and its rate support grant. But I share the grave doubts which have been expressed whether the new block grant will achieve its objectives. I think that it will be even more complex than the present system. It involves an unnecessary and, to my mind, undesirable degree of Government intervention.
I should like to quote once again that very moderate organ of opinion, the Local Government Chronicle. On 7 December 1979 it said this:
Even if a team of Department of the Environment officials is permanently installed in every local authority, it will still be impossible to make unitary grants work in an efficient or fair way.
That is very strong criticism, and the Government must take into account that that is a view shared by many people with long experience of local government—Conservatives, Socialists and Liberals. The Government must take note of the anxieties which have been expressed by local authorities and local councillors everywhere in the country.
In Northumberland, an all-party plea not to proceed to shackle local government in this way has been made by the county council, with the support of all the six district councils in the county. I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise the validity of their concern and agree to hold further discussions with the local authority associations about


their alternative proposals. There are alternative proposals; they ought to be considered. Indeed, I for one, without a firm assurance that these further discussions are to take place, would find it difficult to support the Bill, in spite of my approval of its intentions and many of its provisions.
By all means control the taxpayers' total contribution to local government, by all means seek as fair a distribution as possible between the various parts of the country and the various types of authority, between cities and rural areas, but do not reduce the effectiveness of locally elected members of councils.
I shall quote a typical reaction to the Bill that came from Councillor David Adams, mayor of Castle Morpeth. He chaired the joint meeting of the seven councils in Northumberland. That area is one of the most disadvantaged under the existing system, yet it still prefers that system. He said:
Do not rob the local electorate of their democratic right to run their affairs through the ballot box.
One of our great constitutional lawyers, F. W. Maitland, said during the last century:
The local authorities must be left to flounder and blunder towards better things…There is no good in half trusting men; they should be trusted fully or not at all…give the local authorities a large room in which, if they can do no better, they can at least make fools of themselves upon a very considerable scale.
No doubt in the nineteenth century Professor Maitland could not foresee the extravagances of modern local authorities. However, the truth remains. If local electors are dissatisfied with the running of local affairs, they have a remedy in their hands They must be encouraged to use it.
The alternative is further erosion of local democracy. There will be even greater difficulty in finding people who are willing to serve on local councils. Conservative Members have often said that there is nothing wrong with Britain that a little less legislation and a little less Government interference would not improve. In so far as the Bill flies in the face of that belief, it will require a great deal of further thought and discussion before it deserves to reach the statute book.

Mr. Robert Mellish: As requested, I shall make a brief speech, and I shall concentrate on that part of the Bill that personally affects me—London's docklands. When the area became derelict in the early 1970s, I made a speech in the House to the effect that this was the greatest chance that London had had since the fire of London. It provides an opportunity for the use of imagination, great plans and great finance and an opportunity to build something for the future of which we could all be proud.
At that time I declared my support for a development corporation. I recognised that it was the only machinery that could achieve that. Anyone who doubts that need only look at the record of development corporations. They have built new towns that are the pride and joy of Britain. Those new towns were built under different Governments. I wanted a development corporation 10 years ago. However, I wrote to the previous Prime Minister, now the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), and I received a good reply. The present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food stalled democracy by one of the oldest methods—he set up committees of inquiry. For several years we had nothing but committees of inquiry. They produced three reports. One report suggested that the whole area should become woodland.
The most democratic gentleman, the right hon. and learned Member for Hex-ham (Mr. Rippon), then set up the dock-lands joint committee, men of great integrity. Within the limits prescribed, they did a good job. However, they do not have the powers of a development corporation. It may be said that such powers should now be given to them. However, the very concept of a development corporation is as right today as it was then.
When the Secretary of State asked me two weeks ago to become vice-chairman, I accepted the invitation in the spirit of challenge in which it was made. I may add that I would have loved to have been chairman. I have always been one who wanted to be a boss.
Over the years I have argued in favour of a development corporation and


I now have the opportunity of becoming involved. I know that I shall be criticised, but I have asked everyone what purpose I should serve by not being a member. What purpose would I serve if I refused on the basis that contrary critical views might be expressed? What purpose would I serve if I walked away? Whatever I may be, I have never been gutless, and I therefore accept the challenge.
It is imperative that there should be local government representatives on a development corporation.

Mr. Ogden: Mr. Ogden rose—

Mr. Mellish: I know that my hon. Friend will say that it is an office of profit. I shall come to that point. I have asked the Secretary of State whether local representatives are to be included on the development corporation. I cannot state his final reply—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) appears agitated, but I have no hesitation in saying that local authorities will be represented on that development corporation if they so wish. The Secretary of State will invite them.
The powers embodied in the proposed legislation offer a great chance to the development corporation. I accept the challenge on the basis that it gives me a chance to be inside and to protect those whom I represent.

Mr. Ogden: Mr. Ogden rose—

Mr. Mellish: I shall give way as my bon. Friend appears to be agitated. His question must be very important.

Mr. Ogden: My question has nothing to do with any office of profit. I wish the chairman well when he has my right hon. Friend as vice-chairman. Does he agree that the key to success of any urban development corporation is the dowry that it brings to the area? How much cash will urban district corporations have?

Mr. Mellish: Of course, that is right. If I had known that my hon. Friend wished to ask that question I would have given way ages ago. A development corporation that has just been set up would be worse than no committee if no money were available. What a joke! I cannot imagine what entertaining business might

be under discussion. I wish to put it on record that the Docklands Joint Committee—within the limitations of its authority, power and finance—has done a first-class job. I shall not walk away from that but rather build on it. I hope that within the next decade we shall be inspired to regenerate that land and that it will become a credit to all.
Of course, there is a salary attached to the job. However, as I said to the Secretary of State, I shall not take the salary. Therefore, the job is not an office of profit under the Crown. I shall not leave the House. If I do not take a salary, I can stay here. I have been a Member of Parliament for 34 years—

Mr. Hattersley: Mr. Hattersley rose—

Mr. Mellish: My right hon. Friend appears to be agitated. Does he wish to say something?

Mr. Hattersley: I was anxious for someone to take this green card out for me. As my right hon. Friend is doing jobs, perhaps he will do that one as well.

Mr. Mellish: Let that be recorded. I am not taking any salary for the job and, therefore, the job cannot be regarded as an office of profit under the Crown. In those circumstances, I shall continue as a Member of Parliament.
I know that my remarks will be read by others outside the House. I have represented my constituency for 34 years, and I think that I have given it fair service. I think that my constituents trust me. My constituents will understand why I am taking part in the development corporation. I want to continue that work. I cannot continue it if I do not join the development corporation and so protect the interests of my constituents as well as those of others. I care about the social needs and outlook of that area as much as any hon. Member. Against that background, I accepted the job.
My parliamentary career is coming to an end. I wish to be certain that I can continue the same type of work for which I came into the House. I believe that the development corporation will allow me to do that. I shall go in with enthusiasm and with guts. I shall do what I can to make this great London of ours something to be proud of.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I hope that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) will forgive me if I do not continue along the lines that he followed. However, I shall be the first Back Bencher to offer the congratulations of the House on his appointment. Few people can know more about dock-lands than the right hon. Gentleman. He has lived and worked in that area for a long time. It will give pleasure to the vast majority of hon. Members that the right hon. Gentleman is to remain with us, at least for some time.
The foremost objective of local government reorganisation was to create a system in which it is possible to stop the steady erosion by Whitehall of local authority powers and responsibilities and return many of them to town and county halls, where they can be best exercised to take full account of local needs and circumstances. I welcome the relaxation of ministerial control, which is set out in clause 1 and elsewhere, for the greater discretion that it will give local authorities and the manpower saving that it implies for the Department of the Environment by removing from it those responsibilities and powers.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said that the Secretary of State must accept that, taking the Bill as a whole, the balance sheet of increased powers, in the opinion of local authority associations, is not as advantageous to local government as they would wish. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Spark-brook (Mr. Hattersley) pointed out that the Association of District Councils stated that it cannot accept the claim that the Bill is a major advance in local freedom and responsibility. In particular, there is considerable opposition to the block grant. That opposition comes from all the local authority associations, and it is not often that they all agree about anything.
I have considerable sympathy with the Government over the block grant. Undoubtedly the rate support grant and the regression analysis method have been abused by prodigal and selfish authorities. People in and out of local government have been crying out for a change in the system. The Government now produce their block grant proposals

to stop the abuse, only to find that local government says that it was not so bad after all and that the powers that the Government propose to take are out of all proportion to the limited problems with which they aim to deal.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of the spending authorities have been the progressive ones? He cannot make a broad statement that covers all authorities. Environment makes a difference. Before reorganisation, my own small local authority, almost from a tip, created a complex of roads and sewers on which to build factories. If that project had not been successful, it would have been counted as an extravagance, but it was successful. Such factors should be taken into consideration.

Mr. Morrison: It does not necessarily follow that the councils that spend the most money are the best councils. The best councils are those that produce the the best value for money. In the past, we have only too often seen Labour-controlled councils throwing ratepayers' and taxpayers' money down the drain. That is why the Government bring forward the proposal.
There is an implied backhanded compliment to the Secretary of State in the criticisms of the block grant. Memories are short. Distribution of the rate support grant, as practised by the previous Government, was unfair and biased, but that is already beginning to fade from memory. The new distribution introduced by my right hon. Friend is satisfactory to local authorities, and therefore many now feel that these proposals are not necessary.
Nevertheless, if I may proffer a little advice to the Government, they must do one of three things, They must either find an acceptable alternative to the block grant in conjunction with local authority associations, as they are trying to do—and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his open-mindedness—or they must persuade local authority associations of the benefits of the block grant system. Clearly, they are dissatisfied at present. The final option is to drop the proposal and leave the system as it is until such time as local authority associations come forward with an acceptable solution. After all, we are arguing


not about the total amount of money available for local government but whether a few selfish authorities should benefit at the expense of the majority of responsible authorities.
Finally, I am concerned about one important aspect of the planning proposals in part IX of the Bill. Although perhaps it is arguable, it may not be unreasonable to place more decision-making in regard to development control in the hands of district councils. However, it is unacceptable to create a situation in which district councils may ignore the structure plan. If they do, it may be imposible for the county, within the new capital control system, to provide the required infrastructure. Alternatively, if the county provides that infrastructure, it may well be only at the expense of development in other districts within its area. That point must be given serious consideration. I hope that in Committee the Government will be sympathetic to the need for ensuring that structure plans can be upheld. The Secretary of State tried to reassure us. Nevertheless, doubts exist and will continue unless there is further reassurance in the Bill.
My right hon. Friend and I both served on the Committee on the Local Government Bill in 1972 when he was Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. He will remember the problem of trying to create the right balance of planning powers between the types of local authority. He is now making a further attempt to right what some thought was an injustice. If he is to right an apparent wrong, he should do so on the basis that the solution is satisfactory to county and district councils.
The Bill is full of good intentions, but it has given rise to considerable fears, which can no doubt be removed in debate or by amendment in Committee. I look forward to an even better Bill when it returns to the House.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: I have taken note, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the request that hon. Members make short speeches; and, in deference to the House, I shall endeavour to limit my speech to 10 minutes, although it is not yet 7 o'clock.
There are many ex-councillors in the House tonight who have been through

the mill of local government. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) made a thoughtful speech. I believe that the debate augurs well for an interesting Committee stage, of which the Government will have to take careful note.
I am in a unique position today. My county council has a Conservative majority of three to one, and for the first time in my life I have been given a brief by that council to attack the Conservative Government's proposals. It is unusual to ask a Labour Member to do that.
I wish to speak of the relationship between central Government and local authorities and to say a few words about the direct labour organisation.
The Conservative-controlled Nottinghamshire county council generally welcomes the format of the Bill. In a report it states:
The main platform of the Government's approach was against a back-cloth of giving greater freedom to local authorities by in the first place reducing central controls and then by giving greater freedom to local authorities in local decision making and the ways in which it spends its money.
The report goes on to say:
certain of the Government's proposals and in particular the provisions of the Local Government Planning and Land Bill presently before Parliament, do in fact take us in an opposite direction by increasing central control and by adding to rather than diminishing bureaucracy".
On the subject of block grants, the document states:
The proposal is the same as was suggested by the last Government following the recommendation of the Layfield Committee for the introduction of 'unitary grants', which were opposed at that time by some members of the present Government. The 'block grant' will in fact severely prejudice local democracy and will vest substantial additional powers in the hands of central Government to influence the decisions of individual local authorities.
The Government's main intention appears to be to prevent a relatively small number of local authorities who overspend from obtaining additional grant at the expense of other authorities. Such limited intentions could be achieved, it is contended, by an adjustment in the existing rate support grant system without the need to introduce a complex set of proposals which strike at the roots of local democracy. Opposition to the proposals has been voiced from all sides of the County Council.
I find it unique that I am speaking on behalf of a Conservative-controlled county council in opposition to its Government's proposals. I asked the council


"Why do you not go and see the Minister yourself? He will say that I am politically prejudiced." I was amazed at the disappointing reply that I received. If Ministers in the previous Labour Government had flatly refused, or not received or welcomed leaders of our county councils, I am sure that our Prime Minister of the day would have rapped the Ministers' fingers and told them to listen to the county councils.
Whether he likes it or not, the Secretary of State is now fervently believed to be taking over certain functions of local authorities. When the Labour Party is returned to office, our Front Bench must refuse to pick up the powers. It must repeal them as soon as possible. All county councils and associations are picking faults in the Bill.
It is rather odd that another Secretary of State is trying his level best to give more power to local authorities when the Secretary of State for the Environment is seemingly taking powers away.
I was a Minister for some years in Northern Ireland, where local authorities had very little power. The saying in Northern Ireland was that the only thing that local authorities could do was bury the dead and empty the dustbins. Because I was a Minister for five years, I know of the difficulties and problems that arise when Ministers usurp the powers of local authorities. I know that it happened when I was a Minister, and I am sure that it happens now.
The local authorities and various groups such as the Alliance Party and the SDLP did not have any decision-making powers. It is the fear of local authorities that they will follow Northern Ireland on that matter. Local councillors and other bodies become professional critics. They have no powers of decision-making but become passers-on of complaints to the Minister in charge on the hill. Planning, house building, lettings and repairs—what I would term the blood and guts of local democracy—are in the hands of the Minister.
If old Mrs. Jones stops a councillor in Londonderry and talks about something that might need repairing in her council house, or why she has not got a council house, the councillor—if he is on the majority side—does not have to explain

the policy of the council, which he would have to do if he were stopped in, say, Mansfield or Nottingham. He would not have to explain the priorities but would say that he would take the complaint to the Minister on the hill who would try to sort it out.
When I was a Minister in Northern Ireland, I found that my desk was full of complaints of that nature, not only from councillors but from the Members of Parliament who represented that area. They also became arbiters of complaints that should have been dealt with not by Members of Parliament but by locally elected councillors. If the powers are usurped by the Government, there is nothing left for them to do.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) can also talk of the time that he and I spent on one case about a ball cock that had become stuck. That is what happens when Ministers usurp the powers of local authorities and take over decision-making. I am pointing out the dangers of taking too much power out of the hands of local government.
I know that it does not apply to this Bill, but I see a danger in the sale of council houses. I am against legislation enforcing the sale of council houses. I am opposed equally to legislation that stops the sale of council houses. During my five-year stint in Northern Ireland, I brought in a scheme for selling council houses, but those houses were about 100 years old and were in a special category.
Decisions are better left to those at local level. I can remember some decisions that I made at local level on local schemes which, if the Bill had been in force, would not have got off the ground.
If I had had to fill in a pro forma, questionnaire or return and send it to the Minister, he would have thought that it was frivolous spending. I remember being carpeted by my local press when the local hippodrome closed and the local council decided to buy it and turn it into a theatre. People said that it would be the biggest white elephant in Mansfield. I have no doubt that if the Bill had been in force the Minister would have said that it was frivolous spending. It turned out to be anything but a white elephant. It was one of the best decisions that we made.
Another example is the local sauna baths in Mansfield. Again the local press


and others criticised us, and it would have been a case where the Minister would have said that it was frivolous spending. There again, it is a moneymaking project and one that everybody appreciates.
The danger of the Secretary of State's proposals and his relations with local government is that he will go down a slope that will give rise to a situation developing between councillors and central Government such as we faced in Northern Ireland.
I hold a clinic morning in Mansfield on Saturdays. It is a good clinic, attended by councillors and myself. County councillors from both sides attend on a rot a basis and sit in one room while I sit in another room. When people come into my clinic, it is easy for me to refer them to the councillors. Any good local councillor will tell me to mind my own business and that I have enough to do looking after my affairs at Westminster if I try to poke my nose in. However, that does not stop people from asking me to pull a few strings or to put pressure on so that they can see a councillor.
Up until this Bill, I have always been able to tell people that such matters as policy are for local councillors. With the spate of takeovers and legislation that will be forced on local authorities, as was pointed out to me by a group of councillors on Saturday morning, certain problems will become national and not local if the Bill goes through unamended. If I start hearing about problems with housing and repairs after the Bill goes through, let me say to the Minister that he will have to sort out my housing problems. The Minister is coming dangerously close to upsetting the balance between central and local government, and he should think hard and long before doing so. [Interruption.] I have nearly finished my speech. I should like to make a point about district labour organisations.
In Nottinghamshire, the county council has written to me saying that, if the DLOs go through, in Nottinghamshire, on maintenance and roads alone, the council will require an additional 30 staff at a cost of £130,000 to operate the new arrangements. I often hear the phrase from local councillors, more than anybody else, "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut." That is what is happen-

ing. My district council of Mansfield has had a district labour organisation for over 50 years. One often thinks that local councillors do all they can to usurp the powers of and override other organisations. My district council has had a building management board for the past two years which has put out a report showing that the district labour organisation in the council has saved the ratepayers of Mansfield over £350,000 in the last two years. The district council has no illusions that the Bill will bring it out of the wood. What it will find hard will be the extra administrative and bureaucratic costs.
The Committee stage of the Bill will be interesting. I am sure that the Bill will be considerably changed by the time of Third Reading. If it is not, the local authorities will come back to the Minister, and deservedly so. My advice to the Minister is that he should forget his prejudices. This is not a fight between himself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), although at times it appears to be. It is a fight with the local authorities—a heck of a lot of us have worked on local authorities—and my advice to the Secretary of State is that he should get off their backs before it is too late.

Mr. Den Dover: First, I declare an interest as a parliamentary consultant to the George Wimpey group. However, my views this evening will be based on three years' experience at the National Building Agency, where I was chief executive, and two and a quarter years—prior to entering the House—when I was director of housing construction with the GLC. In the GLC, I had a work force of 3,000 and a turnover of £30 million before I realised that the forward building programme of the GLC was reducing from about 5,000 new houses a year to only 1,000 a year.
It became apparent that the size of the organisation had to be reduced drastically. Over that two and a quarter years I reduced the work force by 1,000 direct blue collar employees, 200 white collar office workers and several hundred subcontractors. It was essential, because the work load was reducing. That contrasts markedly with many Labour-controlled councils up and down the country which,


when the work load in the construction industry reduced, did not tailor their work force accordingly, but sometimes increased it. That is not sound economics in a business sense.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) mentioned in his speech that 20 years ago the authority that he was in charge of won jobs in competition with major contractors. I submit that over the past 20 years the rules of the game have changed dramatically. The legislation has required only a reasonable percentage of jobs to go out to competition. The front page of the Bill states that in certain circumstances local authorities are obliged to invite tenders. In many cases only 15 or 20 per cent. of the work has been gained in competition by the direct works organisations. That is not good enough. It should be remembered that private contractors outside obtain virtually all their work in direct competition and that little work is obtained from negotiation.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the number of apprentices and to the safety and security aspects of direct works organisations. Certainly, some of them have done well. Private contractors have to try to give their employees as much security as is possible in this difficult time for the construction industry. They also have to pay particular attention to safety on the sites, in the workplaces and in the offices. That is of paramount importance. The training has to be tailored to the needs and the economic circumstances of the future flow of tradesmen.
Some major contractors have an enviable record with apprentice training and tradesmen training. The Bill concentrates, rightly, on the need to produce proper accounts. That relates to maintenance work as well as to new work and modernisation and it does not need a vast organisation. Indeed, if the organisations had been allegedly showing a profit or gain in the past, surely, by changing to part I and part II of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy proposals, the same accountants or cost clerks could give the results in the format that the Government expect from the direct works organisations.
I look forward to the day when direct works and private enterprise compete on like terms. With my two and a quarter

years at the GLC and 13 years dealing with national contractors, I do not doubt which sector will produce the goods and which will show that it can produce value for money. After all, that is what we are trying to achieve from the Government and from the local authorities.
I turn briefly to Part XVI of the Bill, which relates to urban development corporations. I welcome the proposals for an urban development corporation here in London and I am sure that they will be welcomed in terms of jobs in the respective areas. I am not sure about the need for an urban development corporation in Liverpool, where I have worked and lived. My constituency is part of the central Lancashire development corporation. In the past, I had a great deal to do with new towns as chief executive at the National Building Agency. The lesson has always been to buildhouses, along with the development and creation of jobs. The two must go in tandem. Unfortunately, in central Lancashire that golden rule has been broken. We are left with vast acreages of rented housing in an area where there was 65 per cent. owner-occupation before the advent of the new town. That is a lesson that the urban development corporations in London and Liverpool should learn.

Mr. Straw: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the central Lancashire new town should be wound up?

Mr. Dover: I have made it clear on many occasions that we should work towards the reduction and eventual closure of the new town by January 1985. So far we have had far too many rented houses, which were a big drain on capital expenditure locally and nationally and a drain on the ongoing debt because none of the rents were fair economic rents.
What better than to have private enterprise housing built at the expense of the developers and paid for by the buyers who have an investment in the area or who might be moving up the housing market? Such people buy because they have a stake in the area, whereas in the rented sector we are attracting people into an area which is experiencing a net loss of jobs. My main point is that we must create employment in the two new development corporations. By all means let there be some housing in the rented sector, but in the main we should concentrate on the provision of jobs in the area.

6 pm

Mr. David Alton: The miscarriage suffered by the Bill in the House of Lords was but the beginning of a series of mistimed and misplaced manoeuvres which have damaged the credibility of the Government and the Secretary of State in the eyes of local government. Some of the original intentions of the Bill were doubtless sincere and might even have commended themselves to both sides of the House.
However, hopes for any such co-operation were dashed by the high-handed action of the Secretary of State. First, he tried to introduce the Bill surreptitiously through the House of Lords. Then he rode roughshod over the wishes of local authorities. Now he introduces a Bill that is so lengthy and full of detail that almost certainly the guillotine will be used, thus making nonsense of democratic processes.
For many of us still involved in local government, it appears that the Secretary of State and his Ministers know nothing of the workings of local government. Despite their lack of practical experience, however, some elementary common sense might have avoided the greatest catastrophe which has befallen local government since the equally disastrous reorganisation of local government in 1972. It is the same old Tory shifting of power from local authorities to central Government, ignoring the wishes of the local authority associations and introducing new procedures which are both cumbersome and more costly.
Part I of the Bill deals with the relaxation of controls on local authorities. The principle behind that relaxation is that local government autonomy should be increased. If the Bill achieved this, my reservations would be reduced. The partnership that should exist between local and national Government is being abolished over a number of simple matters such as the maintenance of allotments, planning and pollution control. These are precisely the areas where minimum standards are necessary and where everything should not be left to the discretion of local government. Local government accepts that it must work with the national Government, as it also accepts the need for basic minimum national standards.
Part I of the Bill removes from local authorities the obligation to comply with

a long list of minor and fiddling requirements. They include such matters as whether the local council should transmit a copy of a report by the public analyst to the Minister under section 99(2) of the Food and Drugs Act 1955 or whether local authorities should be obliged to keep records under the provisions of the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949. Such issues are neither here nor there.
In part III there are far more serious implications for every local council in England and Wales as the Secretary of State proceeds to place the dead hand of central Goverment upon local government. In part III, clause 7(2), the Secretary of State blandly asserts:
A local authority or development body may not undertake functional work unless they have first made a written estimate of the cost of carrying out the work.
This provision replaces the long list of fiddling constraints with a new range of controls. More pen-pushers will be needed to fill in even more forms before the most basic work can be carried out.
What happens if a council tenant rings up the direct labour office to report a burst water pipe and water is gushing out of a loft, damaging belongings and endangering the electric supply? No doubt the Secretary of State would reply "Sorry, Madam, you will have to wait until a form has been filled in and an estimate has been made." What is the woman supposed to do in the meantime? What happens if a sewer collapses or a wall caves in? What happens to a local authority if it completes the work and fails to make out a written estimate or work out the cost of carrying out the work? Perhaps that is the most sinister part of the Bill.
If a local authority overspends, the chief executive, his officers and local councillors can be surcharged. There is need for greater control over maintenance departments. I am certain that we do not get value from DLOs, but the House should accept that the Government are misguided in their attempts to tackle the problem. Instead of bashing DLOs, the House should accept that they fulfil some functions which it would not be appropriate for private builders to undertake. For instance, the emergency call-out service could not be mounted nearly so


effectively on a 24-hour basis by private contractors.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: They would not be prepared to do it.

Mr. Alton: As the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) says, private contractors would not be prepared to do it. Nor are all DLOs more costly than private builders. They give good training, provide for decasualisation and can be used for emergency work. There is certainly a need for a tough audit on DLOs, and, where new building or rehabilitation is being undertaken, the Liberal Party favours the use of competitive tenders against private enterprise.
Part VI deals with the punitive measures that might be exacted against local councils that fail to comply with the wishes of the Secretary of State. In principle, I can see some advantages in the new block grant system. It works quite effectively in some parts of Scotland. Nevertheless, to have entered into this arrangement and to abolish the rate support grant settlement in the arbitrary way that the Secretary of State has done damages the relationship between central and local government. The association of local authority chief executives pointed out last week:
The Bill states its intention to relax controls over local government. In practice it does the reverse. Minor relaxations are compounded by major new proposals for new controls.
Where local authorities overspend, the Secretary of State will cut their block grant, and he says that he will be monitoring their speeches and their actions. Then he will strike. Perhaps he intends to install a tinkerbell in every municipal building in the land and, having heard the clandestine conversations of council chiefs, no doubt the Secretary of State will swoop like a bird of prey. Understandably, the local authorities are up in arms about this vindictive new system of controls, especially in view of their good record in complying with the financial guidelines of successive Governments, whoever has been in power.
Similarly, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, the new transitional arrangements for the next financial year are close to retrospective legislation. We will know what those arrangements are only when

we are two or three months into the financial year. The Secretary of State has announced that the threshold for the year will be 119p in the pound. Some authorities already levy poundages of 130p or more. Perhaps the Secretary of State will explain how local authority Houdinis in treasury departments are expected to turn 130p into 119p.
I turn now to the new capital expenditure system, where once again local authorities will be penalised if they fail to comply with the parameters laid down by the Secretary of State. Although I welcome the decision to allow capital receipts against the capital expenditure of local authorities, I am not certain that the 10 per cent. tolerance level is realistic. Chief executives and their councils will probably be caught between breaches of the law and breaches of contract on capital projects to which councils are already committed. When I met the chief executive of Liverpool city council yesterday and discussed these matters, I found that it was a problem that certainly concerned him.
Equally, as the right hon. Gentleman implied, just because this Government will use this new system to hit council spending what is to prevent the system from being used by a future Socialist Government adopting, say, a "money grows on trees" approach and penalising councils that they decide do not spend enough?
The Liberal Party would repeal this legislation, although the Opposition spokesman made no public statement about whether he would be prepared to do that.
Part II of the Bill deals with the publication of information by local authorities, and we welcome that provision, However, I feel that it is hypocritical of central Government to say one thing and to expect local government to practise more open government when central Government is not prepared to live by those standards. I would like to see that principle applying to national Government as well.
In the matter of councillors' allowances, I welcome the measures that are being introduced, but I think that they should apply not only to committee chairmen but to opposition leaders as well.
As regards rating revaluation, inevitably the whole basis for evaluating rates is suspect. I hope that it will not be too long before the Secretary of State brings forward proposals for abolishing the preent rating system and introducing a new system based on the ability to pay rather than the current arbitrary values.

Mr. Ogden: They would not get much from Liverpool.

Mr. Alton: The Community Land Act was a flawed piece of legislation. I point out to the Secretary of State that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), who was present when that measure was going through Committee, suggested that we needed regional landlords. I was pleased that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook seemed to have been converted to that cause today. I notice that there have been more converts today than there were on the road to Damascus.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: There was only one on that road.

Mr. Alton: Turning to urban development corporations, I add my congratulations to those of other hon. Members to the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr.Mellish) on his appointment to the London urban development corporation. The Conservative leader of the Merseyside county council, who has long been the most vociferous critic of the principle of urban development corporations, has today been appointed vice-chairman of the Merseyside urban development corporation. Many might say that that is suitable as he comes from a long-established firm of funeral directors.
I am suspicious of the sudden conversion of the Secretary of State for the Environment, because in Liverpool in March of last year he said that the election of a Labour Government would mean that yet another body would be established to tackle the problems of Merseyside's dockland. How right he was. There are probably no fewer than 11 different bodies now trying to tackle the problems of Liverpool's dockland. I hope that new resources will be brought to bear on the problems of the sad, rundown area of the Liverpool docks. Nevertheless, I am concerned about the lack of autonomy of the urban development corporations. It reeks of the

irresponsibility about which the Secretary of State frequently talks when castigating local government to establish bodies that do not have budgets for their first year of operation. Again, it is distinctive of the figure mentality of the Secretary of State when he cannot even say what it will cost to run the urban development corporations in the first year.

Mr. Steen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the London and Merseyside docks have been a public disgrace for a decade or more and that something needs to be done about them? Does he further agree that today is a great day for Merseyside, because there is to be an injection of £200 million which will help to regenerate the area?

Mr. Alton: I should be delighted if the Minister were to tell us that £200 million was to be injected into Merseyside in the first year of operation of the urban development corporation. I suspect that this again is an hon. Member—this time the hon. Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Steen)—taking a figure from the top of his head. I should like to know precisely what money will be made available before I give any firm commitment to a body which is not to be accountable to local people; and of the members who are to serve on it we know only the chairman and deputy chairman.
The Bill seeks to abolish the Clean Air Council, and the Government wish to abandon their supervisory role over clean air matters. It appears that the Government do not wish to pursue further the improvement of standards of air quality. They offer no justification for that. The Secretary of State barely referred to it in his speech. The Government simply say that 1·2 man-years per annum will be saved—a trivial saving compared with the pollution of the atmosphere which will result. The Bill undermines rather than strengthens local government; it divides rather than unites central and local government; and it will cause as much additional bureaucracy as it abolishes.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: Since the Secretary of State sat down, not one hon. Member on either side of the House has offered unequivocal, let alone enthusiastic, support for this measure. The Minister of State, when he replies to the debate, will have to take


account of that factor. Indeed, he and his colleagues will have to take still more account of that factor during the later stages of the Bill.
I cannot hope to match the expertise in and knowledge of local government that have been exhibited by several hon. Members. I shall confine my observations to the one small area covered by the Bill of which I can claim to have a little special, direct and detailed knowledge—London dockland. I want to refer to their problems and the best way to deal with them.
One of the few matters referred to by the Secretary of State with which I agreed was his description of the damage suffered by London's dockland over many years. Many parts of the country have suffered blight of one kind or another. London's dockland is unique, because it has suffered four separate successive causes of blight.
First, there was the bomb blight. Dockland was damaged more than any other part of London—perhaps more than any other part of Great Britain—during the war.
Secondly, there was what might be called technological blight, because of changes in the handling of freight containers, packaged freight, roll-on/roll-off, and larger vessels with deeper draughts. Therefore, there was a tendency for dock traffic to move from the upper river docks towards the estuary, and that created a great deal of havoc in dockland.
Thirdly, there was de-industrialisation blight, partly because of the docks traffic moving out and with it all the industries associated with the docks, and partly because of the attractions offered by successive Governments to industry to move out to new towns, development areas and special development areas. For all those reasons, there was a great deal of de-industrialisation in dockland.
Fourthly, there was planning blight—making the perfect the enemy of the good: making a plan, making another plan because the first one was not liked and then making yet another plan. More than two and a half years and £250,000 were wasted in the Travers Morgan study of dockland. We had all the airy-flights of fancy of Sir Horace Cutler and such chaps about shoving into dockland Olympic villages, a golf course, a safari

park and so on, as though it was an empty space. But thousands of people live there and they want to go on living there. All that created delay after delay.

Mr. Steen: Mr. Steen rose—

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) may know about the problems of Merseyside, but he obviously does not know much about London's dockland. He should look at the problem before pontificating upon it.

Mr. Steen: Mr. Steen rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is hoping to be called later in the debate. Surely he can keep his interventions until he is called, if he is.

Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is only right to correct the impression given by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) that I have not visited the London docks. I have just completed a three-hour coach trip of the docks.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I get concerned for those hon. Members who cannot be called. If there are more interruptions of that kind, fewer hon. Members will be called. The hon. Gentleman should be patient. Those words ought to mean a great deal to him.

Mr. Mikardo: First, that was not a point of order. Secondly, I did not say that the hon. Gentleman had not been to see the docks. I said that he did not know about the problems of London's dockland. He has been to see the docks, but he still does not know about their problems. We have had these problems in London's dockland for the reasons that I have given.
The second matter about which I agree with the Secretary of State is that there must be no loss of momentum in dealing with these problems. Considerable momentum is now being developed in the provision of jobs, housing and amenities. There has been an economic resurgence in the past two or three years and almost miraculous things have been done.
I am worried that there will now be a loss of momentum precisely through the introduction of the urban development corporation. The right hon. Gentleman said that everybody who has studied the


matter is in favour of the scheme. He was careful not to give any list. All the people I know—all the local authorities in the area, all the community associations, all the representative bodies, all the industrialists and the trades councils—are against it. The only exceptions are those hoping to make a fast buck out of it. They are in favour of it.
I fear that there will be a stoppage. With the best will in the world, and even though the Secretary of State has been quick to appoint the chairmen and deputy chairmen of the two corporations and intends to get the operation going as quickly as possible, there are stillmembers of the corporations to be appointed. Staff will have to be appointed and offices found. Things have to be started up and there will be a need for consultations with all sorts of bodies. A study will have to be made of what is now being done to see whether any changes are necessary. I estimate that two years, possibly longer, will elapse before any firm decisions are taken. The Secretary of State is achieving exactly the objective he says that he wants to avoid—the objective of slowing up momentum.
The urban development corporation will be no more than a spanner in the works. The Docklands Joint Committee set up in 1974 took two years—that is understandable for a big job—to produce its strategic plan. The urban development corporation will have to go through that process all over again. The strategic plan is pretty good. It provides for 33,000 new jobs, for 23,000 new dwellings and for all the services that go with them. Every single bit of that strategic plan is on schedule, except for two things—[Interruption.]—that are being held up by the Government.
If the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) wishes to talk, I wish that he would stand up. He is sitting there, muttering non-stop. If he cannot be intelligent, he should at least not be discourteous.

Mr. Alan Clark: Mr. Alan Clark(Plymouth, Sutton): rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that what is disturbing the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) is that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) is speaking, it would appear, from the aisle rather than from his place. Mr. Mikardo.

Mr. Mikardo: Mr. Speaker—

Hon. Members: The hon. Gentleman is still standing there.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman and I entered this House together, only I have been here a little longer. At the same time, we all try to observe the old customs. That is what I think was agitating hon. Members.

Mr. Mikardo: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was making a speech that I thought highly germane to the subject.

Mr. Alan Clark: The hon. Gentleman was in the wrong place.

Mr. Mikardo: I was being distracted by constant comments from a sedentary position.
The strategic plan of the Docklands Joint Committee is on schedule except for what is being held up by the Government. That puts paid to the myth that there has been some indecision or even bickering, as I have heard some Conservative Members say, in the Docklands Joint Committee. In the six years that the joint committee has been operating, there has been only one disagreement of any substance. That concerns a difficult and complex matter about which anyone could disagree—the line of the southern relief road. Apart from that issue, things have gone very well.
I should like to refer to the place I know about—the borough of Tower Hamlets. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the need for getting jobs. News International is building premises along the Highway at the moment. That project will provide 4,000 jobs. There has been reference to slowness in the granting of planning permission. The project, covering many acres and running into millions of pounds, was granted planning permission in 20 days by the borough council from the time that the application was lodged. Some other publishers down the road are starting to look with envy at that project. Before long, the Highway may have to be christened New Fleet Street because it will be full of newspaper publishers.
Three other major private companies are building there. Billingsgate is moving into shed 36 in the West India Dock. Shed 35 has been converted into 14


small enterprise units for smaller businesses, all of which were let within a few months and are now functioning. The Tower Hamlets Centre for Small Businesses, in which I am personally involved, with great help from the National Westminster Bank—for which we are grateful—is building a new enterprise centre on the site of a derelict warehouse. It is an excellent site where new starters in business will be given decent premises and some help. All this makes nonsense of the argument that the Docklands Joint Committee has some prejudice against private enterprise.
We are trying to move the City of London polytechnic into the docklands. It is now housed in short-lease premises and will soon be facing problems of space. That is held up only by the right hon. Gentleman's Department. Everyone else has agreed. This week, the first houses with gardens to be built in Wapping for 200 years will become occupied. Before long, they will be surrounded by Wapping wood, the first time that a wood has been planted in an inner city area in this country for 200 years. All this will be set back by a new organisation. That is the trouble. People will have to stop and think again.
One would have imagined, listening to the part of the debate that concerns London dockland, that we were talking about a piece of empty space with no one living in it. One of the main differences between the Merseyside problem and the London problem is that not many people, I understand, live in the Merseyside dockland area whereas an awful lot live in the London dockland area.
The total area covered by the London dockland scheme contains a population of about 60,000. Half of those 60,000 live in Tower Hamlets, which is a minor part of the acreage, crammed into the narrow strip between Tower bridge and Canning Town bridge. Much the biggest part of the acreage is in Newham. One cannot walk in and do what one wants without taking notice of how those people want to live. They have their own ideas. They will express those ideas. They will be tough about the issue.
I do not envy the urban development corporation if it cannot carry the cooperation of those people. If the UDC sets up its office in Cable Street—a logical,

central place forit—Mr Broackes and my right hon. Friend might have as much difficulty getting down Cable Street to their office as Sir Oswald Mosley experienced getting down Cable Street some 40 years ago. The Secretary of State's appointment of a Labour man to one of the two jobs, to team up with the toughest asset-stripper in the City, is not a partnership between St. George and the dragon. It is a partnership between the dragon and the virgin. if he thinks that by appointing a Labour man as one of the two chiefbods, he will assuage local feeling, he must be more naive than I imagine him to be.
The people in that area have views of their own. More than half a century ago, when a Minister tried to impose on the people of Poplar something which they did not like, the Poplar councillors defied the Establishment. They were charged, they went to court behind a band with banners flying, they went to gaol and they were re-elected from gaol. Their point was eventually conceded by the Establishment. The Establishment could not do what it liked without taking the views of those people into account, and the Establishment today has to take into account the views of the grandsons of those people.
I would not have the job of the chairman of the UDC for all the tea in China. There are 30,000 people in that small area, and the Secretary of State had better stop thinking that he can decide what is best for them. They have their own views about that.

Mr. Michael Latham: I would dearly like to pursue the speech made by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), because in 1974 and 1975 I served on the Select Committee of the House which investigated London's dock-lands and was doing so again in 1979 at the time of the general election. There were mixed views both on the Committee and in the report about the future structure of dockland. I remember cross-examining the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow in the Select Committee, and it was obvious that there were many wide-ranging views on this subject.
I want, instead, to take up another matter raised by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow when he said that no Conservative Members supported the Bill. I support the Bill very strongly and warmly welcome it. Without a shadow of doubt, it is one of the most important pieces of local government legislation this century. I wish it was shorter and its scope narrower, but, given the Government's desire to do everything simultaneously, on the whole it is well and clearly drafted and surprisingly easy to read.
On direct labour building, in which I immediately declare my direct financial interest as a builder, we must ensure that the rules of the game are clearly defined. Far too much is left to regulations under the Bill, and. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider publishing his draft regulations before the Bill comes back for Report. There are precedents for that. It is vital to ensure that the best accounting practice is followed, in the hope that all the details of the CIPFA report will become operative within local government.
I want now to speak on the clauses dealing with the Community Land Act, including the Land Authority for Wales, and the related clause 67. The basis of the Community Land Act was quite simple. It was to be what the late Tony Crosland called "the permanent scheme". Land for building would increasingly be bought by the State and resold, perhaps, by the State, with the development controlled by the State and the builders selected by the State. The ultimate intention was that virtually all land should be nationalised in this way and, what was more, that it should be confiscated as well, as the intention was to take it at a 100 per cent. level of tax.
What did the permanent scheme in England achieve? In 1976–77 local authorities bought 1,570 acres of land and resold 53·3 acres. There was a deficit of £11·61 million, and administrative costs were £3·5 million. In 1977–78 they bought743 acres and resold 132 acres; staffing costs were £3·1 million and the deficit was £6·6 million. In 1978–79—which Labour Ministers said would be a better year—local authorities bought 1,156 acres. I do not know how many acres were resold, because the figures

have not been given, but they cannot have been very impressive, because only five local authorities out of 377 which had submitted accounts by last November managed to make a profit.
When all the administrative and other charges are taken into account, the period 1975–76 to 1978–79 showed a collective deficit in England of £52·5 million, and that is a deplorable waste of public money.
For Scotland the position was equally atrocious. In 1976–77 Scottish local authorities bought 66·42 acres and resold none. In 1977–78 they bought 114·42 acres and sold just under 1 acre. In 1978–79 they bought nearly 860 acres and managed to sell 26 acres from the purchases of 1976 and 2·8 acres from the purchases of 1977, making a grand total by November 1979 of 30 acres resold out of just over 1,000 acres bought. Of that 1,000 acres, 788 acres were on one or more sites in the Shetland Islands.
Meanwhile, the ministerial paper poured remorselessly out. By the day of the general election there had been 151 pieces of bumf issued to local authorities. By November 1979 the Conservative Government had already issued 26 more pieces, mostly concerned with winding up the whole exercise. Never was there a better example of futile and bureaucratic administration than this dismal scheme.
The scheme could never work. We warned in 1972, when Mr. Crosland and others first floated ideas about it, that it could not work. It made three assumptions about land purchase and local government, all of them wrong. It assumed that there were up-to-date structure plans allowing for the speedy identification and release of land; but that was not true. It assumed that local authorities could act speedily and in an entrepreneurial way to buy land for development; but they are congenitally incapable of doing that. Indeed, their whole training is against it. It assumed also that people would willingly part with their land at below its market price, but they will not. Such land has to be taken compulsorily, slowly, expensively and bureaucratically.
Only in Wales did the scheme work quite well. Once this became plain, I argued in early 1978 that the Welsh Land Authority should be kept. I was not


popular with some of my hon. Friends for saying that at the time, but I am glad that the matter has been dealt with in this non-ideological way.
The basis of a sensible land policy is fairly simple and it is fourfold. First, the basic assumption should be that building land should be found by builders and brought forward by them for development. It should be the job of local government to make the plans and to approve the applications, but not to find the land. The Bill achieves that and scraps all the absurd assumptions of the Community Land Act.
Secondly, it should be the job of the Government to ensure that structure plans are approved speedily. Ministers should have the power to require local authorities to publish registers of land and to disgorge surplus land. The Bill does that. It should have been done years ago.
Thirdly, there should be voluntary back-up powers for local authorities to help in the assembly of land where the private sector cannot cope on its own or where good planning requires this. Clause 67 amply achieves that.
Fourthly, there should be a proper tax on planning gains which should be set at a realistic but not confiscatory level. The 60 per cent. rate contained in the most recent Finance Act is the correct rate, and I have long argued for it in the House, although the builders would obviously wish it to be lower.
Parliament has a dreadful record on the land issue. Since the war, it has changed its mind 10 times. The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 sought a 100 per cent. level of land tax, subject to the £100 million compensation fund. In 1953 and 1954 we returned to a two-tier system by which land in the public sector was confiscated at 100 per cent. tax but private sector land exchanged hands at market price. That system caused Mr. Pilgrim's suicide. In 1959 we returned to full market value all round. In 1962 we had a short-term capital gains tax. In 1965 we had a full capital gains tax. In 1967 we had a Land Commission and a 40 per cent. levy. In 1971 we had no Land Commission but capital gains tax again. In 1973 and 1974 we had a development gains tax of up to 83 per cent. and a first lettings charge. In

1975 and 1976 we had the Community Land Act and a land tax up to 80 per cent. with the threat of 100 percent. in the future. Now, in 1979–80 we have a 60 per cent. tax rate and no Community Land Act.
I hope that the House will agree that we simply cannot go on like that. It is no wonder that the land situation is so bad in this country and that there are so many grumbles about bureaucracy, high prices and delays.
The Bill contains a sensible and non-ideological response to an issue that has troubled Parliament since Lloyd George's day and which Parliament never got right. I hope that the Opposition will think so, too. In the light of the atrocious experience of the 1947 Silkin Act, the Land Commission Act 1967, which Richard Crossman himself described as a total failure, and now the pathetic performance of the Community Land Act 1975, the time has come to bury this dreary issue. I trust that on the issue of land the Bill will be, as Robert Peel said in 1835 about parliamentary reform, the final and irrevocable settlement of a great constitutional question.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I should dearly like to follow in detail the speech to which the House has just listened. The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) and I have frequently debated this subject informally in the House and in other places. I was responsible for administering the Community Land Act in the latter part of the term of office of the previous Government.
There are two points on which I agree with the hon. Member. First, I agree with what he said in general about the appalling record of Parliament since the war in handling the land situation. Although he and I may disagree about the way in which the matter should be handled, there is little doubt that a great deal of damage was done to the environment and to the whole issue of land use generally as a consequence of not settling on a final solution to the problem. I wish that the Bill did that. I do not believe that it does. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman thinks that it does, either, as the Land Authority for Wales, which he champions, is so obviously the kind of solution, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook


(Mr. Hattersley) said, that might well be applied elsewhere.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Bill is extremely important. I listened with great interest, and, indeed, the House listened with great respect, to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who once was Secretary of State for the Environment. He and many others on the Government Benches expressed grave disquiet about the Bill, and perhaps also about the way in which the House is treating it. Unquestionably it is an important Bill. It is not just one Bill. It is three or four Bills. It is a fat Bill—although, admittedly, it is slightly thinner than it was previously—and I discover that it costs 25p more than the earlier, fat Bill.
The fact that this is a fat Bill does not necessarily mean that it demands special treatment from the House. When I was on the Government Front Bench, I was responsible for the passage of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. That was carried through without much difficulty in Committee and on Report as it was largely, if not wholly, non-contentious.
I maintain that this is a major constitutional Bill, for reasons that were advanced by hon. Members on both sides of the House. On the previous occasion when a local government Bill of this magnitude was presented to the House, in 1972, it was given two days on the Floor of the House on Second Reading. It had many days on Report. That was quite right. If it was right in that case, it is even more right for this Bill because of its deep constitutional implications. I go further than my right hon. Friend and suggest that several parts of this Bill should be considered on the Floor of the House because of their constitutional implications. I refer to part III, about direct labour organisations; unquestionably, part VI, which covers the whole issue of the rate support grant; part VIII, which covers capital expenditure; and part XVI, about urban development corporations, which was of concern to several hon. Members who have already addressed the House.
In its title, the Bill refers to the fact that it will relax cotrols on local government. Let me be amongst those hon. Members who welcome the relaxations that are being made. But let us also

recognise that in the main these are minor proposals. Although they are very welcome, they have had the effect of misleading some people into believing that that is the main purpose of the Bill. It is not. This is one of the biggest attacks made on the freedom and autonomy of local government that has taken place this century. It will inevitably result in a fundamental shift of power from local to central government. That is very surprising coming from a Secretary of State who on 18 July 1979 at the annual conference of SOLACE, said:
I believe that an efficient local democracy can monitor the activities of local councils far better than civil servants in Marsham Street.
I wish that those words had been reflected in the Bill. I do not believe that that is the case.
Some time ago, I was addressing a conference of CIPFA. I should like to quote the words I used on that occasion. These words better illustrate the relationship that should exist between central and local government. At the CIPFA conference in 1977, I uttered these words quite deliberately as a challenge to the right hon. Gentleman on the issue of whether rates should be abolished as an independent form of revenue for local government. I said:
I believe in the right of a Labour council to defy within the law the will of a Conservative Government, as I accept the right of a Conservative council to do the same when we are in power.
I doubt, as a consequence of the Bill, if it becomes law, whether it will be possible for a Labour council to defy the Conservative Government within the law or, when a Labour Government come to power, whether it will be possible for a Conservative council to defy the will of that Labour Government.
I want to illustrate my point with two aspects of the Bill, although there are many and I refer to them as issues that should be debated on the Floor of the House. The first is the provisions in part VI.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that for the first time in history the Secretary of State will be laying down what he believes to be the standard expenditure for each local authority. I accept that he will not be able to do that in an arbitrary fashion and that he will do it, using the words of clause 38(1),


in accordance with the principles to be applied to all local authorities.
I think that the House should reflect on what this innovation actually means. It means that the Secretary of State, whoever he may be, will be defining a figure that he thinks a local authority should spend. He will do that for the first time in history. For that reason, it will be difficult for him to avoid answering questions put to him by the local authority or on the Floor of the House about where he thinks cuts should be made, if the local authority is spending more than the standard figure, or where he thinks more expenditure should take place on the occasions when a local authority spends less. One may adduce that argument, whichever Government are in power and whatever political control the local authority may have at the time. It will be difficult.
In effect, the Secretary of State will make a judgment about the actual level of expenditure of each local authority. By setting a standard figure he would, in effect, be saying "This local authority is spending too much" or "This local authority is spending too little." The Government may reply by suggesting that the standard expenditure is an objective assessment of need which was carefully worked out and tested in the computer. However, as many hon. Members know—especially those who have been on rate support grant deputations to the Department of the Environment or who have raised on the Floor of the House the issue of their authority's needs element—an objective assessment of need is very difficult.
Both parties have been accused in the past of using the needs element for political purposes. Indeed, the Secretary of State did just that this afternoon. During the debate on the rate support grant, he used these words to describe what had happened under the previous Government. He said that the intention of his settlement this year was
to halt the unjustified
—I emphasise the word "unjustified"—
drift of the needs element from the shire counties which has taken place every year in the last six".—[Official Report, 16 January 1980; Vol. 976, c. 1677.]
The Secretary of State is entitled to that point of view and I am entitled to mine.

What I am trying to point out is that an objective assessment of need is a difficult thing to arrive at.
The difference between the situation that we are talking about under the Bill and that which existed hitherto is that previously when we talked about the needs element of the rate support grant settlement we discussed in the House what sort of contribution we thought central Government should make towards local authorities and on what basis it should be made.
But we will be talking about a completely different matter once the Bill becomes law. We shall be talking about the needs for expenditure throughout the whole area of a local authority, which means that that subject now becomes a legitimate subject for discussion in the House and answer by the Minister who happens to be sitting on the Government Front Bench representing the Department of the Environment. These are the things that make me deeply concerned about the Bill.
Of course I accept—as did the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham—the necessity for central Government to express opinions and have at their command powers to control the level and totality of local government expenditure. But once we get into the issue of local government individual authority expenditure and begin to express opinions and to incorporate into legislation penal sanctions to back up the opinions or decisions of central Government, one is entering into a serious area.
I want to refer to the proposal for urban development corporations, though not in the same detail as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). I want to refer to the general principle. There is a significant difference between the provisions in the Bill and the provisions in the New Towns Act 1965, which has already been quoted in the House.
The Bill says:
If the Secretary of State is of the opinion that it is expedient in the national interest to do so, he may by order made by statutory instrument designate any area of land as an urban development area.
The 1965 Act contains these words:
If the Minister is satisfied, after consultation with any local authorities who appear to him to be concerned, that it is expedient in the national interest to do so"—


and the words that follow are roughly comparable with those in the Bill.
In the 1965 Act there is a requirement that the Minister shall consult the local authorities which will be concerned, whereas in the Bill there is no such requirement.
In the schedule to the 1965 Act there are these words:
If any objection is duly made to the proposed order and is not withdrawn, the Minister shall"—
I emphasise the word "shall"—
before making the order, cause a public local inquiry to be held
So far as I can make out, there is no reference in this legislation to the necessity for a public local enquiry. That deprives local authorities and local interests of the right to make an objection and have it heard at a properly constituted public inquiry.
I believe that those are serious omissions. My reasons for believing that are that in present circumstances it is vitally important. If we are building Stevenage or Harlow new towns in green fields, there will inevitably be some people who will be directly affected and who will have reason to object. If we are building a new town in Warrington, central Lancashire or some other part of the country where there is an established urban community, it is all the more important to have a public inquiry and to consult local authorities and obtain their agreement and co-operation about what is to be done.
If one is building a new town slap in the middle of the docklands area of Greater London, it is imperative that one has the co-operation of the GLC and the borough councils that are involved. If one does not, the proposal will fail. It will fail because of lack of co-operation and because local community groups and local authorities will not be able or willing to co-operate with the work of a development corporation. For that reason alone, the whole proposal is bound to lead to chaos, confusion and delay in an area where we can little afford them.
In conclusion, if the Bill becomes law it is likely to destroy much of the independence and autonomy of local government. It will place weapons in the hands of the Secretary of State—and, indeed, future Secretaries of State—which will enable central Government virtually to set the

rate, as has been said by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, to control expenditure within fairly narrow limits and to exercise considerable control over capital expenditure.
If all else fails, it is open to the Secretary of State, when faced with defiance by a local authority, to set up an urban development corporation in the area and take away housing, planning and building control powers. Defiance of central Government by a local authority—which I believe to be an integral and necessary part of the devolution of power to an active local government—will become impossible. These are the issues upon which the House must vote tonight and why the Bill is of such fundamental importance.

Mr. Anthony Steen: The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) made some important points which no doubt my right hon. Friend the Minister will answer when he winds up. I should like to concentrate on one particular point which the hon. Gentleman raised and about which he spoke at great length with feeling and obvious concern—urban development corporations. This matter is contained in clause 129.
It is a novel concept. I have recommended it in speeches and proposals in my part of the country for some years. However, the point that I made was that we should go slightly further than urban development corporations and set up old town corporations. That would mean that in ailing city areas where the local council had not proceeded with the job of recreating wealth and rejuvenating the area, the old town corporation, like the new town corporation, would carry out those tasks.
The proposal for UDCs does not go far enough and confines itself to a small part of the country in two principal cities. My main concern when I proposed the concept of an old town corporation, and my concern about the new proposals for UDCs, is connected with derelict land. As the House knows, many thousands of acres of derelict, vacant and dormant land are now in public ownership. It has been suggested by one national organisation that as many as 250,000 acres are contained within our major city areas and that there are 1,600 acres in the Merseyside area—Liverpool in particular—some


900 acres of which are in the hands of public authorities and nationalised industries. Will the proposal for UDCs deal with this problem? The answer is that it will not.
What will happen is that other parts of the Bill that compel local authorities to keep a register of derelict land will start the process that I myself have sought to start through two Bills, and that is to compel authoirties to auction off derelict, dormant and vacant land and get market forces to work so that those who want to buy such land can do something with it. I suspect that the proposals in the Bill are the first step in that process. I hoped to do that in the Bills that I sought to introduce in one step. Perhaps, in looking at this matter in detail, it is necessary to take two bites at the cherry.
That, however, is clearly an important issue, because so long as there is dormant and derelict land in the hands of public authorities it is forcing up the prices of the remaining pieces of land because of scarcity. It is also making rents higher, because the remaining buildings are fewer than could be available if the land were sold and developed.
Although the urban development corporation is not dealing with the total problem of urban renewal in terms of vacant and dormant land, there is another provision in the Bill which, if pushed to its logical conclusion, will start the process by which dormant land is used for some purpose. It does not really matter what purpose, provided that it is used for something. At present, that is not happening.
We should not presume that the UDC will solve the total city problems. It will not do so. It is dealing with only one small part of London and one small part of the docks in Liverpool.
If I have a criticism of the Bill, it is that it does not declare the Government's policy on urban renewal. That is what we need. What we need in the Bill is a commitment by the Government to a total programme of urban renewal. The Bill is a step in the right direction, but I wish that it went a little further. In itself, it will not bring back small firms to the inner areas, it will not rehabilitate older housing, and it will not recreate the wealth which the cities have lost. What

the Bill will mean is the revitalisation of two abandoned areas. One of them is right in the centre of London, and whatever has been done—and it has been very commendably done—has not been done fast enough. The UDC will speed up the process.

Mr. Spearing: Rubbish! Absolute nonsense!

Mr. Steen: It is the same with the Liverpool docks, where land has been lying dormant for far too long. The purpose of the UDC is to get something happening. What we are talking about is that purpose and not a total urban programme.
The concern, however, is whether the UDCs are relevant to the overall problems facing the total cities. I have mentioned derelict land. Perhaps I should also mention the massive demolition which has taken place in the inner areas and the way in which the bulldozer has destroyed homes and firms. This is still going on. In Liverpool, we still have cases, week by week, of small firms being bulldozed out of existence and public housing being built on the sites.
There is, therefore, no point in having a UDC set up on the docks in the hope of creating new wealth there if, at the same time, the Government's programme does not halt the progress of the bulldozer and call in every attempt by local authorities compulsorily to purchase small firms which are the wealth creators in urban areas.
I am told that, in spite of enormous investment in St. Katharine's Dock, in London's dockland, there has been a very poor return on the capital invested. That is why, even more so if the Government wish to recreate wealth and to bring in new firms, they must take these powers.
A further point which needs examination is population drift. According to paragraph 74 of the White Paper of 1977, "Policy for the Inner Cities", Glasgow lost 21 per cent. of its population over the 10 preceding years, Liverpool lost 22 per cent., Manchester lost 18 per cent. of its central population, London lost 16 per cent., and Birmingham lost 8 per cent. All the principal cities in Britain have shown an outflow of population from the inner areas to the outer areas


and new towns. One of my concerns about building the new factories, industrial complexes and housing on the docks, particularly in my city, is whether there is the population to provide the wealth creation to sustain that operation.
I hope that the Minister will tell us this evening whether he will be relaxing planning controls in the UDC areas. One of the problems in the major urban areas is the planner. In my view, the planners have a lot to answer for as regards the destruction of inner city firms and homes. They have destroyed not only homes but communities. Is the Minister proposing that the planning regulations will be relaxed in these two UDC areas? If they are not relaxed, the speed of the process could be fouled up by local authority planners. Does my right hon. Frend also agree that the architects' departments should not be allowed, as often happens, to design all that is to go in through the UDC?

Mr. Alton: I know that the hon. Member is a great enthusiast for the UDCs. He has made that point again today. I understand that an announcement was made today in Liverpool about the chairman of Bibby's becoming the chairman of the UDC. At the press conference, he said that he had in mind an involvement of two days a week. He said that he would be shedding one or two of his existing activities to make room for his work as chairman of the UDC. I understand that he is also chairman of NORWIDA, a council member of the CBI in the North-West, a member of the Merseyside chamber of commerce, a member of the Merseyside Enterprise Forum, a director of Granada, and a director of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. On top of that, he is on the northern regional board of the National Westminster Bank.
All that considered, and knowing that the hon. Member is such an enthusiast for this concept, may I ask whether he would care to indicate whether a person such as this gentleman will have sufficient time to do the kind of work that will be necessary, and whether he is convinced—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—that this is more than just a half-baked, half-crazed scheme?

Mr. Steen: What the hon. Member has said has clearly indicated what an

ideal choice this man is. I am also delighted that the deputy chairman of this body is to be the chairman of Merseyside county council. He is a man of great experience. I am sure that between the two of them they will rejuvenate that area.
I must move on, because many other hon. Members wish to speak. I was saying that the architects' departments in many of the principal cities are cornering the market and not allowing private architects to have a go and get involved in the urban regeneration plan. Will the Minister assure the House that private architects will be given an equal chance to compete by tender for contracts in the urban development areas and that local authority architects' departments will not be allowed to corner the markets?
I have dealt with the problem that the Government face concerning small firms going to green field sites on the edges of cities. They moved in droves from the inner city areas because the Government's regional programme encouraged them to leave inner areas and move to the green field sites on the peripheries of cities. The Government did this by a whole range of grants and incentives. In special development areas, I think that it cost the Government over £14,000 to create a job in the outer area in place of one in the inner area.
Again, the UDC will not be relevant if it does not at the same time have an answer to the problems of the continuance of firms moving from inner to outer areas. It is no good having a small area of wealth creation on the docks. If the move is from the inner area to the outer area, the population drifts from the inner to the outer area and the green field site drift makes the town longer and larger. What we must do by declaring UDCs is to strengthen the inner areas.
I should like the Minister to deal with the question of how the Government will strengthen the inner areas. One of the problems we have faced with urban regeneration is that of creating wealth. One of the points that needs to be discussed in relation to UDCs is whether they will have tax-free zones within them. Shall we have free ports? Shall we have enterprise zones that will be free of planning laws, with rates rebated and Customs and Excise duties relaxed? Here there are two development corporations on the


docks, the ideal place for that sort of movement, but, unless wealth creation is obtained along those lines, it may well be that the UDCs will not have the effect that we should be looking to them for.
I invite hon. Members to take a cursory look over the Government's programme since 1968 on urban rejuvenation. In 1968 we had the speech by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson), saying that the urban crisis would be solved by the provision of £20 million. Then there followed the "pockets of deprivation" speeches, to the effect that there was nothing wrong with the urban areas but that there were little cankers in the urban areas which could be cured if extra funds were made available to those areas. Therefore, teams of community and social workers went to those pockets of deprivation with a view to trying to improve the communities there.
Then the urban aid programme switched the burden of the rate support grant from the shire counties to the urban areas, but that did not last long. Soon after the pockets of deprivation theory was exhausted, there then came into being a new approach, which was that the problems of the cities would be resolved only if the towns were looked at as a whole. Then we had the quality of life studies, the six town studies, the neighbourhood projects, aimed at trying to understand—

Mr. Ogden: Mr. Deputy Speaker, are we or are we not under a 10-minute rule from 7 o'clock?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): The hon. Gentleman was fortunate enough to be called just before 7 o'clock. The rule does not apply to anybody called before that time, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will draw his remarks to a conclusion.

Mr. Steen: Of course I will do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was just outlining the fact that the policies of successive Governments since 1968 had failed to cure the problems of the cities, and I was dealing with the number of schemes that had been introduced by successive Governments and which had failed. I was talking about the way in which the pockets

of deprivation had been replaced by the total approach to the urban areas. We had an urban deprivation unit in 1970; then a comprehensive community programme; and last but not least we had the partnerships of the previous Administration. Yet, in spite of all those urban programmes, the cities are as deprived and as depressed as they have ever been. The number of people who are homeless, who are living in had housing and who are unemployed is as great as ever.
Therefore, I think that the House has a right to ask whether the urban development corporation is just another scheme along the line of previous schemes and whether it will have any major impact on the environment and on the the improvement in wealth in urban areas, or whether it is another project that will join the list of projects which will be marked up in some book and which are, in the main, gloriously irrelevant to the difficulties faced in the inner urban areas.
Therefore, my concern and that of my constituency is to give the urban development corporation a good try and as much support as we can. It raises new issues and creates new challenges. Just how far it will succeed will depend upon the support of the community, the support of the local authority and, above all, on how much private enterprise can generate fresh money, fresh employment and new jobs.
Where the urban development corporation will fail will be if it relies entirely on public funds and does not manage to create new wealth and new private incentive and initiative.
All I can say is that we on this side of the House welcome the Bill. We think that the urban development corporations will give the areas of London and Liverpool a chance to revive. The extent to which they do so will depend upon the confidence that private enterprise will have in recreating new jobs and new wealth.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Gentleman, may I say that we shall be operating the 10-minute rule until 9 o'clock. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will ration themselves, to save the Chair from having to intervene.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall certainly obey your injunctions, in spite of provocation by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen). He is the last of the great romantics and a dedicated individualist. I can think of many terms in which to describe him, but I would never suggest that he is thin-skinned. I am still amazed that, having spent the past six to eight weeks charging round Merseyside damning every suggestion that the urban development corporation might solve the needs of Merseyside, he has made tonight exactly the same U-turn as Sir Kenneth Thompson, the chairman of the county council, has made. I am lost in admiration for Ministers in the way that they have twisted arms, or used gentle persuasion over these last weeks or used reasoned arguments. If the Government have not started making U-turns, my goodness their county council supporters in Merseyside have.
The Secretary of State and his colleagues will know that on 26 July the right hon. Gentleman met a deputation from the North-West Economic Planning Council—the day that those councils were abolished. He was most courteous. Actually, he was wearing the same shirt; it does not come from Marks and Spencer. It was a most friendly meeting. We asked for many things and got nothing. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that he could help by removing any procedural blockages in the Department and getting speedy decisions. I told him of the Hebden Road "fiat tops", Ministry of Defence houses in West Derby, which the local authority wished to sell to a housing area so that they might be modernised and improved.
I left a note for the Secretary of State. Three weeks later I received a reply saying "The Secretary of State has read your note"—he is a fast talker but a slow reader—"and things are going to be done about it." In July I reminded him again. Apparently, the matter was very complicated; he was going to make a decision. Another note came, and in January it was said "We are expecting an announcement soon". May I ask him to chase up this matter, make a decision or telephone 01–876 2224, which is the Dyno-Rod Limited telephone number in

London, to clear the blockages in his own Department, without worrying about the Bill? I admire the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm, the triumph of amateur theory over practical experience, though it was noticeable that the response from his colleagues was in inverse proportion to their practical experience of local government.
The Bill promises much but in fact will do little. It will take the "local" out of local government, will take the "plan" out of planning and will knock the "I" out of land. The right hon. Gentleman may want local government to be more independent. Certainly he is entitled to want local government to do what he wants it to do. We are all guilty of that. Local government is great as long as it does what we want.
I was amazed to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) mention the separation between the powers of the local council, the county council and the Government, with everybody sitting round in the same place. My councillors send me housing cases, and this applies to most Members on Merseyside. We need a gauleiter or a housing commissioner to sort out housing problems on Merseyside, but the boundary is between one and the other. The key to the whole Bill must be this, and surely the right hon. Gentleman will recognise it.
In parts VI, VII and VIII, the Secretary of State is to increase the control on central Government funds provided for local government. He will control the money supply of Government funds. He will also control the amount of local money that authorities can raise from rates unless it is raised in a particular way for a particular purpose, and if they do not do that he will control them. He is the Henry Ford of politics. One can have any kind of freedom one likes locally, just as Ford said that one could have any colour motor car as long as it was black. That is the sum of it.
I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman for wanting that as long as he does not dress it up as freedom. It is a misuse of the English language. Of course, he is a Welshman, as Nye Bevan used to point out when he was heckled by him from time to time. It is true that the Secretary of State is to relax some of his controls. That sounds fine. What is he


to relax?—weights and measures, trade, amenities, clean water, all very important but nothing compared with rates, roads, housing and industrial development. Those are the real needs of local development; but the Bill will not help local government at all.

Mr. King: The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) has glided glibly over the issue. He said that nothing is being done about housing. The Bill contains the most fundamental relaxation of housing controls ever announced in the House.

Mr. Ogden: The real needs involve rates, roads, education, housing and industrial development. The Minister seems to be talking about a different Bill. The Government say that they will allow a reduction in Parker Morris standards and that if there is extravagance local authorities will be clobbered. If standards are reduced, how can there be extravagance? The Secretary of State and his colleagues—hawks in the Cabinet—are committed to a reduction in Government controls, a reduction in taxation and a reduction in Government expenditure. No one should blame them, because they told us before the general election what they intended to do. The Secretary of State for Industry is doing that in relation to the British Steel Corporation.
However, the Secretary of State for the Environment intends to direct the mode of operation of all direct works departments. Is that not intervention? Is that not a contradiction and a misuse of the English language? The Secretary of State proposes to extend responsibility allowances for councillors. We must face the fact that there are full-time paid politicians in local government just as there are in national government. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) was a full-time politician before he came to the House. There is no harm in that. He declared his interest honestly. We must accept that we shall, at some time, move on to elect city managers. We should act deliberately and not allow ourselves to drift by chance into such a situation.
I wish to deal quickly with the urban development corporations. Merseyside Members from all parties have asked for a Merseyside industrial development agency. We called for that particularly

at the time when the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies were established. We never asked that Liverpool, Bootle or Birkenhead be made free ports. We never asked for a speculators' paradise.

Mr. Steen: Why not?

Mr. Ogden: At least that is honest. Perhaps that was why my former Conservative opponent in West Derby, now the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), declared his interest in land and building. Much money can be made out of UDCs. Since the Secretary of State's announcement, the Conservative-controlled county council has opposed everything that the right hon. Gentleman proposed. The former Member of the House, the leader of the Conservative county council, Sir Kenneth Thompson—a doughty character—has since changed his mind.
The Liverpool city council, in one of its daftest pieces of maladministration, said that it was in favour of an urban development council. It could not wait to see how much money would be available before it gave the idea its blessing. All its cards were on the table. There was nothing left to bargain with. Next May there will be local elections and in Liverpool a local government mini-general election, and, although I am not a betting man, I believe that the Liverpool city council will be controlled by the Labour Party, which is opposed to UDCs. No development corporation can succeed unless it is able to work with local authorities. That is the key to new town development.
We do not know how much money is available. I tell the Secretary of State frankly that if he sends this new bride to Merseyside without a dowry there will be no support. If it is to be a speculator's paradise and the profits go out of Merseyside, it will be of no use to us, to Lancashire or anywhere else. If there is more money, there is a very slight possibility of support. The Secretary of State must spell out how much is in the dowry. He must show us the colour of his money and tell us what he intends to do. Then we may go along with him.
The Government say that the cancellation of the general rating revaluation in England and Wales will save nearly 1,000 permanent posts and 400 short-term appointments in the Inland Revenue. On Merseyside, when we talk of saving jobs,


we mean keeping jobs. I presume that the Government's proposal means unemployment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order The hon. Member has had his 10 minutes.

Mr. Ogden: I think that I have made it reasonably clear that I do not like the Bill.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Robin Squire: I speak as a London borough councillor and a former leader of that authority. I shall not deal with the florid comments by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden). However, he may detect an element of sympathy during my enforced 10-minute speech.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on much that is in the Bill. I say that with sincerity, although time forces me to concentrate on the areas with less appeal to me. I particularly welcome the details of councillors' reimbursement, which is long overdue. I welcome the tidying-up of planning laws and the abolition of the Community Land Act. I do not expect that to find favour on the Opposition Benches.
I wish to examine three specific areas. First, I shall deal with capital expenditure controls. I welcome the change that has taken place in the Bill since its first appearance in the House of Lords. A major improvement is incorporated. It should be recognised by all sides. It removes many legitimate objections by local authorities. I have a small quibble. I hope that the Government will examine again in Committee the necessity for detailed control over repairs and renewals, repairs to roads, maintenance, and replacement of equipment which is done by local authorities on an annual basis and which previously it has not been thought necessary to control. The Government might be over-egging the pudding on that issue.
The Secretary of State is taking power to bring in an ultra vires order against an authority in certain circumstances. I hope that that power will be used only when issues of supreme importance are involved. At times local authorities face major building programmes. It would make local government even more im-

possible if a Secretary of State, of whatever party, were able to step in at a critical moment when the budget was over-running.
I regret the other major changes since the Bill was first published. I refer to a subject which has not yet been dealt with—the question of gipsies. Hon. Members will represent constituencies either where the word "gipsy" conjures up visions of horror or where the word is greeted with some amusement. The problem is no laughing matter. I hope that some of the proposals contained in the original Bill will be reinserted in Committee. I hope that at long last councils will have the power to take action following the provision of sites under the 1968 Act. That power has long been denied them under successive Governments.
The main part of my speech deals with the block grant and the transitional arrangements, I make no apology for referring to this because it is one of the most important aspects of the Bill. It is unfair to base rate poundages on 1973 values, particularly since there will be no revaluation in 1982. That could make a substantial difference to local authorities, and it does nothing to improve the standard of public appreciation of rates and rateable values generally—which in many areas is fairly low. As regards the substance, I can do little better than to quote briefly from the AMA editorial in January's issue of Municipal Review:
The rate poundage is no way to compare the spending performance of individual authorities. Figures produced by the AMA show that there is not necessarily any correlation between unit costs and rate poundage. For example, the metropolitan authority with a rate poundage of 88·28p has a unit cost for secondary education of £597·12 per pupil, while in another metropolitan district with a rate poundage of 117·51p, the unit cost for secondary education is £520·43 per pupil.
I seek to show that there is a considerable element of uncertainty about the proposal. Indeed, as the local authorities have pointed out on the question of the 1980–81 transitional arrangements, there is a further problem in that they will not know the final position until after they have been required to make their pound-ages for 1980–81. I accept the assurances given by my right hon. Friends that that is comparable in some respects with other problems. However, it increases uncertainty at a time when local authorities do not need that uncertainty.
I turn now to the heart of the matter—the main proposals on block grant. I have some sympathy with the speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). He highlighted the problems that we face. In 1977 the Labour Government suggested in their Green Paper a unitary grant proposal. After strong representations by local authorities, coupled with an element of inertia, nothing happened to that proposal and it disappeared. It has now surfaced in a slightly different form but bearing a number of the same characteristics. That is to be regretted. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said during the debate on the rate support grant on 16 January:
Standard rate poundages will be determined based on the relationship between actual expenditure and an assessment of standard expenditure—that is, the expenditure which authorities with similar characteristics and circumstances would, on average, be likely to incur in providing a normal standard of services. Standard expenditure will therefore be a figure based on facts."—[Official Report, 16 January 1980; Vol. 976, c. 1681.]
With great respect, that is still not a fact of expenditure. It is based on an actual expenditure and a collection of a number of individual units, which are, correctly, a part of the rate support grant and valuation. When all those factors are put together, particularly with a variety of multipliers, which have also been taken into account, there will ultimately be an assessment. It is no worse for being an assessment. One is tempted to think that the measurement of need has been the golden fleece of successive Governments who have adopted the policy of "searched for by all, and found by none". I do not criticise that. But at the end of the day it is still an assessment. It has to be an asssessment because there is no other way of calculating that sort of measurement.
I am surprised that we continue to give support to authorities which propose to spend above the assessed need, plus the 10 per cent. tolerance. That is at variance with the Government's main proposal to control expenditure. If we are to have a form of block grant system, I would prefer a system whereby above a certain level there is no assistance from central Government and whereby, above that level, the money must be provided by ratepayers. That is the way in

which to make local authorities truly accountable. I do not believe that we shall make authorities more accountable by taking from them greater control over their decisions.
I have served in local government for a number of years—even if it does not yet show—and I have no illusions. I do not believe that all authorities are good. Manifestly, they are not. A few local authorities are determined to set themselves up as independent kingdoms of one sort or another. That is to be deeply regretted. It is to be regretted even more if they do so at the expense of the taxpayer. We must ensure that that element more than anything else is removed. If we did that, I should be prepared to accept the broad canvas of local authorities and accept that they will sometimes disagree with the Government. That is why they are there. If they never disagreed with the Government, there would be no need for separate local authorities. We must live with the irritations. I hope that in Committee we shall be able to make such changes as are necessary to leave local authorities with some control over their own affairs, and leave national Government to control the extent to which taxpayers' money is spent in local authorities.

Mr. R. B. Cant: As I listened to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), I felt quite an old man. He said that he had served in local government for a number of years. I am just completing my twenty-eighth year. Therefore, inevitably, I have a built-in admiration for the status quo. Unfortunately, not enough emphasis is being given to the matter.
The reason why the Bill has been produced, particularly the financial parts, is that we have a crisis. Undoubtedly, local authorities are enthusiastic spenders. The desperation of Ministers stems to some extent from the fact that it is difficult to curb expenditure once it has reached a certain level. Civil Service expenditure cannot be curbed, and, therefore, local government often becomes the whipping boy. Following from that, it is difficult to control or cut local government expenditure. The headquarters staff always remain intact and high profile cuts take place, followed by the dramatic closure of old people's homes, and so on.
My objections to the Bill—I shall deal only with the financial aspects—are similar, to some extent, to those which have already been raised. Regarding capital expenditure, the points which have been raised—the difficulties of the relationship from one year to another, a five-year plan, the problem of revenue expenditure for capital purposes, and the possibility of the use of outside funds with joint partnerships between local government and private development—pose serious problems.
The present Secretary of State knows nothing about local government, and his predecessor who reformed local government knew even less. The Secretary of State must know that without a great deal of Government supervision there will not be a rational allocation of the blocks of resources which he is putting at the disposal of local authorities, bearing in mind the parts played by different personalities. If the right hon. Gentleman is still in office, he will wake up. I agree that the real departure is the application of the doctrine of ultra vires to expenditure which is not really defined but which is connected with persistent overspending.
I do not know how one defines the spending needs. I do not know how authorities of the same characteristics are to be grouped together. It is extremely difficult.
It is interesting to note that the county councils' brief says that presumably what will happen is that the Government will have to fall back on a modification not only of the rate support grant but of the multiple regression analysis which was the foundation of it. Many people who have been in local government even longer than I have are mystified by the concept of multiple regression analysis. I am mystified by it.
I am reminded, in this context, of Palmerston talking about the Schleswig-Holstein question in the nineteenth century. He said that only three people had ever understood it—one was dead, one was in a mental home, and he himself had forgotten it.
If the county councils are right, the Government will be driven back to the previous basis or something like it.
Then there is the important matter of revaluation. There is a letter in the Estates Times this week which draws

attention to the stupidity of trying to devise a grant based upon rateable value when we have not revalued for so long. It points out that we are faced with a situation in which some valuation officers have valuation dates of 1972 whereas some other areas, more typically, have valuation dates of 1969 and 1970.
In order to tame the thing that we call money supply and the public sector borrowing requirement, we are introducing the block grant as a substitution for the rate support grant, and it will have quite dramatic consequences for local authorities.
I believe that we can deal with the problem and keep faith with local government. In all my experience in local government, we have never yet had a consensus, not only between the different political parties but between all sorts of different types of council, opposed to the Government. But now they speak with one voice. If we can get a consensus about a redefinition of the rate support grant in order to make it a little less silly, a little less subject to political whims, that is the direction in which we should go.
I believe that that can be done. It can be done by looking again at standard prices. It can be done by reassessing the importance of the education factor. With the same unit costs, there can be very different costs per head of population between counties. In Staffordshire, the cost per head of population is 34 per cent. higher in rate terms than the average, simply because there are so many more children.
There are also social factors. An important variable in the rate support grant is the one-parent family. The fact that only 1971 figures are available makes nonsense of the position, quite apart from the factor of population. I repeat that it can be done within the existing framework.
What worries me is that the democratic price that we shall have to pay for the introduction of this new financial approach to the solution of problems will be a very high one. We have a very nice medium place in between the dirigiste system in France and the system in the United States and Western Germany, where state government has very well-defined statutory powers. I hope that we shall keep what we have. I hope that the


Secretary of State will not introduce something that will transform local government in the wrong way, moving us along the road to centralised bureaucratic control. If the Secretary of State is using the Bill and his new financial techniques for that purpose, we should be discussing a different Bill relating to the political reform of local government and he should show us more clearly the map that he is following.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: This is an important Bill, making some radical changes. I hope that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) will forgive me if, time being short, I do not take up the points that he mentioned.
I should begin by saying that I am a chartered town and country planner and a fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute. I should like to refer to those parts of the Bill that are related specifically to planning and to development control and promotion.
I very much welcome the transfer of some functions from the county level to the district level. Of the 31 functions that Parliament has given to local planning authorities under the Town and Country Planning Acts, I calculate that at the present moment at least 20 are in some way split between the county and district levels. The result of this has been significant, although I do not want to exaggerate. There have been demarcation disputes, leading to substantial delays in determining some planning applications. Anything that concentrates the power in one quarter or the other is a good thing. This is proposed in the Bill without in any way compromising sound planning principles.
There is one thing that I should like to mention as a Member who has the privilege of representing a seat just inside Greater London. It is that the Bill does not refer to the powers vis-à-vis the Greater London Council and the London boroughs. I should like an assurance that my right hon. Friend the Minister intends to transfer some of the present GLC powers to the London boroughs, on the lines of the counties-to-districts proposals in the Bill.
I also welcome the provision for local plans to be adopted or amended before the structure plans are in operation. The structure plans replaced the old development plans under the Town and Country Planning Act 1968. Two years ago—that is to say 10 years after the Act came into being—more than half of the more than 80 structure plans that were expected had not been submitted to the Secretary of State. I know that progress has been made since then, but it is the time factor that has led to the necessity for my right hon. Friend to propose in the Bill that local plans can, in effect, go ahead before the structure plans are implemented.
I welcome the Secretary of State's intention to bring forward a General Development (Amendment) Order which would exclude, as he said, about 20 per cent. of the total of 500,000 planning applications. I ask him also to look carefully at the overwhelming need to make modifications and amendments at the same time to the use classes order.
I have mixed feelings about the proposed introduction of fee charges for planning applications and planning appeals. I have no ideological point to express. My own view is that development control is for the benefit of the community as a whole and in the public interest, and should therefore be met out of taxation or rates. There are good precedents for this—the weights and measures legislation, the factory inspectorate, the inspection of food and the building regulations, although I understand that the Secretary of State is also minded to introduce fee charges for the submission of building regulations.
I ask my right hon. Friend to look at the problems that the introduction of fee charges for planning applications might bring about. A local planning authority, for good or not so good reasons, may reject an application because of one part of it and encourage the application to come back slightly revised. Would the applicant have to pay another fee charge to put in the application again, slightly amended? My own opinion—it may not be accepted by either the House or the Minister—is that the fee should be charged only when the planning application is approved. Even then, I strongly suggest that it should be payable only when the


application is approved within the statutory period laid down by Parliament, namely, two months.
I shall give one other instance that illustrates the difficulties that may arise. Why should an applicant, who then becomes an appellant, have to pay a fee charge for appealing when a decision has not been given by the local planning authority? One can appeal if the local authority does not determine any application within the statutory period. The aspects that I have pointed out will lead to problems. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider those points.
I welcome the repeal of the Community Land Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) has already demolished that Act in this debate. It has two particular faults that concern me from a planning point of view. First, under the Community Land Act virtually all land suitable for development had to pass through the hands of local authorities. At best, that was an irrelevant waste of time and provided yet another layer of bureaucracy. At worst, it gave a dangerous and unnecessary power to local planning authorities as those authorities could then decide who should develop what land and when.
Secondly, the Community Land Act tempted local authorities to put financial gain before sound planning policies when selecting land for development. The Act was therefore totally unnecessary. It was objectionable because of the sweeping powers that it gave to local authorities and to the Secretary of State. It led also to the loss of individual rights. I hope that individual rights will now return to the position that existed before the passing of the Community Land Act.
The question of urban development corporations raises deep controversy. I listened with care to the expert points that were raised by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett). We may disagree, but I believe that too many acres of prime land in the centre of cities have remained derelict for too long. Redevelopment is needed on a massive scale. The main cause of that dereliction has been that the five London boroughs have squabbled between themselves or with the GLC.

Mr. Spearing: That is not true.

Mr. Chapman: The hon. Gentleman and I disagree. However, I can supply cases that will prove my point.
I do not like the name "urban development corporation". It smacks of a past era of municipality. I suggest the name "special priority areas"—or "SPAS"—to my right hon. Friend. I welcome and support the concept. A valid case has been raised by many hon. Members. They have pointed out that the difference between a new town development corporation and an urban development corporation is that new towns are generally built on green field sites, although that does not apply to Peterborough, Northampton, Skelmersdale and a few other new towns. The argument continues that many thousands of people live in designated urban development corporation areas.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should consider some slight redesignation of London dockland—I am not qualified to speak about Merseyside. Before he sets up the urban development corporation, he might be able to exclude more people without prejudice to the need to develop the site.
This is an important and large Bill. I have reservations about one or two points, and perhaps they can be explored later. On the whole, I welcome the Bill and I give it my support on Second Reading.

Mr. Harry Lamborn: I have represented the inner London borough of Southwark as a local councillor, as a member of the London County Council and as a member of the GLC. I have also represented that area as a Member of Parliament.
I shall confine my remarks to the proposal to establish an urban development corporation in dockland. That corporation is to be established without any consultation with the London boroughs and without any public inquiry. If ever there was a case of flagrant disregard for local democracy, it exists in the proposals for the urban development corporation.
The areas that compromise dockland are not isolated areas of vacant land that can properly be placed within the control of an urban development corporation. They are an integral part of existing


London boroughs. Vast sums of money have already been invested by local ratepayers to revitalise those areas and to bring industry back to inner London.
The Secretary of State stated that dockland boroughs cannot handle the development. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) spoke of squabbling among the five boroughs. Such total misconceptions on the part of those who have not taken the trouble to understand events in dockland, have led to the present situation. The Secretary of State said that dockland boroughs could not handle the development of those areas because they had broader responsibilities. However, it is that very concern for those broader responsibilities that provides the best reason for retaining redevelopment within local government control.
The dockland areas cannot be redeveloped independently of the boroughs of which they are an integral part. At the same time, an awareness has developed of the need to balance the independence of those boroughs with the need for an overall strategy. Within that strategy, the London Dockland Joint Committee has been developed. Despite remarks to the contrary, that committee brings together five boroughs and the GLC, as well as independent members—including Government nominees. The arrangement preserves local democracy and ensures that the development of dockland proceeds in harmony with development in all the boroughs. The urban development corporation cannot do that.
I can speak only as an authority on events in Southwark. I shall do so in order to refute the suggestion that nothing has been going on in those areas and that it is therefore necessary to establish a quango because the boroughs are not acting fast enough. In Southwark, the council's main objective has been to get the proposals off the ground as quickly as possible. Another objective has been to get as quickly as possible the increase of £10 million in the borough's rate base that such a development would give. Already, £13·7 million has been spent on the preparation of the Surrey docks area for redevelopment. A further £8 million has been spent on buying land. Projects to the value of £28 million are now in hand.
To reach that stage, the council has overcome the problems of drainage, soil contamination and methane gas. The former dockland areas have gradually been filled in since 1970. The planning of the basic sewerage and drainage services for the new development began in 1975. The main trunk sewer is now ready to serve the first housing and industrial areas. There may not be a lot on the ground, but much of the basic groundwork has been started by the London boroughs. We are on the threshold of major development that will revitalise the area.
I fear that the appointment of an urban development corporation can only put back the clock. A new staff on a new UDC will want to start redesigning schemes from scratch. We have already suffered too many delays in the dockland areas, most of them from Government interference. In Southwark it took us from July 1974 to February 1979 finally to get a refusal for our imaginative Trademark proposition in the Surrey docks.
I urge the Secretary of State to think again. The establishment of an urban development corporation may be necessary for Liverpool—and I leave hon. Members for that area to speak for themselves—but it is not necessary for the London docklands. It can only delay redevelopment plans for which much groundwork has been accomplished.
The plans for the London dockland represent an agreed strategy between the five local authorities and the GLC, with a workable timetable and an organised staff to implement them. The London joint committee retains the advantages of democratic control while co-ordinating the activities of the borough and the GLC. That is a fine demonstration of making democracy work. It does not need to be replaced by a corporation.
Finally, if the Government use their majority to force the dockland corporation on inner London, I welcome the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) as deputy chairman, and I congratulate him on his courage in accepting that appointment. If the corporation is forced on us, we need a voice at the highest level who understands the needs of inner London and who has lived with the problems of the dockland area since the days when he was a dockers' Member of Parliament


—although he now has not a single docker. My right hon. Friend has an important role to play if we have to have that corporation. With his aptitude for expressing his views in a forthright way, he might cut through some of the red tape that we are bound to encounter and ensure that some of the projects that the boroughs have in the pipeline are not long delayed.
Nevertheless, I am convinced that local democracy can solve the problems of London's dockland. Great progdess has been made. I hope that in Committee the Secretary of State will consider withdrawing the proposals that affect inner London.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Bill has achieved a rare result in uniting Labour, Tory and independent-controlled councils in opposition to it. It can fairly be described as a Trojan horse in lamb's clothing. Despite relaxation of 300 detailed controls, its most significant feature is the centralisation of power. The councils fear that the Bill provides the framework for rigid and dictatorial central control. It could well be a milestone in centre-local relations in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Ioan Bowen Rees, the chief executive of Gwynedd county council, is the author of a highly regarded book, "Government by Community", which I recommend to all hon. Members. He described the Bill as possibly heralding
the end of true local government as we know it.
It is worth recalling that one of Hitler's first actions in Germany was to emasculate local government. We could be opening the door here to the same process.
Over many years we have seen the gradual erosion of local government powers. Trunk roads, hospitals, personal health, school health, ambulances, electricity, gas and the rivers have been taken away from the powers of local authorities. In some ways the urban development corporation moves further in that direction. I hope that we shall not see such a corporation in Wales. I should like to see us moving in the other direction. I should like to see the abolition of the ultra vires rule, although in the present climate that is unlikely.
Parts of the Bill are welcome. I welcome the retention of the Land Authority for Wales, which is generally acknowledged to have done good work. We also welcome the structure of a separate block grant for Wales, which was foreseen in the Wales Act in the previous Parliament. Sadly, we shall not have democratic control over that grant, and there is the question of how the total size of the block grant will be determined. It will also be interesting to know whether there will be provisions for Scotland similar to those in parts VI and VIII, which do not apply to Scotland.
We welcome the provision to make local authorities publish more information, and hope that that message will get home to central Government. By and large, local government is better than central Government at publishing information. Officers send reports to all councillors well in advance of meetings, which can be contrasted with the lack of information given to hon. Members, particularly on the Opposition Benches, from the Civil Service. We also welcome the relaxation of controls, though many are trivial, such as the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act, appeals on the height of chimneys and regulations concerning density meters.
We give a limited welcome to the planning provisions. The case to have planning functions under one roof at county or district level is overwhelming. There is no case for a split. I prefer to see planning as a district level function, but, whichever tier has responsibility, it should be under one roof. I fear that in clause 62 of the Bill provision still exists that districts will have to consult the county on certain matters but that there will be no sanction with the county. However, the counties will retain their planning staff and in Wales they will have to report to the Welsh Office when things are out of line. No doubt that will involve more bureaucrats in the Welsh Office to give the final authority. Thus, there will be a centralisation and not decentralization in the planning functions.
We should like to see an amendment in Committee or on Report regarding the vexed question of second homes in Wales. The Welsh Office advises us that the planning clauses in the Bill are suitable for such an amendment.
I profoundly disagree with parts of the Bill. There is a real erosion of local authorities' powers implicit in the Bill. I speak as a convinced devolutionist in all senses. I quote what the Secretary of State said on 19 July:
Together with responsibility goes accountability. Freedom for individuals cannot be achieved only by abolishing restrictions.…I believe that an effectively functioning local democracy can monitor the activities of local councils far better than civil servants in Marsha Street.
I agree with that, but it is not the direction in which the Bill takes us.
The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives stated:
In the Bill at each critical point the Government have chosen central control and influence rather than local accountability.
That body is not notoriously Labour-controlled or Opposition-controlled and might be expected to have sympathy with the Government in other matters.
I contend that the capital controls are totally unnecessary. Over each of the past five years the local authorities have been within 5 per cent. of public expenditure White Paper projections. The restriction on funding capital projects from the rates is a grave imposition and one that could kill off a vital project in my constituency, namely, a sports centre that is due to be provided at Caernarvon by that means.
The relaxation of other controls such as the Parker Morris standards—which was the point made by the Secretary of State in an earlier intervention—in no way requires this new straitjacket on the total capital expenditure of local authorities.
Equally, local authority revenue expenditure has not been grossly out of line over the past five years. It has fluctuated by plus or minus 2 per cent. against target in each of those years. That is not a reason for introducing the sort of controls that are contained in the Bill.
The central question that arises is, how will central Government assess the varying needs from one area to another? What will be the criteria, who will be assessing them and how? Are we to have what could develop into a perfect system such as that in France? The bureaucratic cost for central

Government of having a real measuring rod and real sensitivity to the needs of each area far outweigh the benefits that could come from the steps that the Government are taking.
I return to the comments of the local authority chief executives in summing up the Bill:
"(a) To lay down for each and every authority the level of expenditure it should undertake.
(b) To take powers to penalise local authorities whose level of expenditure differs from standard expenditure.
(c) To extend its control over capital to all expenditure on capital however financed.
(d) To take powers to compel local authorities to disband direct labour organisations, when a specified rate of return on capital has not been achieved.
(e) To take powers to compel a local authority to dispose of land it holds, judged by the Secretary of State not to be required."
All these are centralising features, so that despite the good parts of the Bill—and there are some good parts—we must vote against it because we regard the essential features of the Bill as being anti-freedom, centralising and bureaucratic in nature.

Mr. John Heddle: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye at this late hour, and I shall be brief.
One of the disadvantages of speaking at this time, with all due respect to my hon. Friend the Minister who has left the Front Bench, is that most of one's foxes have been shot by previous speakers.
I wish to concentrate on two issues that other hon. Members have not concentrated on, and I declare three interests. One interest is as a consultant surveyor and director of a building and contracting company. I would consider my remarks on the Community Land Act 1975 and the abolition thereof to be made with the benefit of some inside knowledge of the working of that Act, and, as I wish to dwell also on the cancellation of rating revaluation in 1982, I should inform the House that I am a fellow of the Rating and Valuation Association.
I was especially impressed by the contribution of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). Clearly, if a Bill achieves the almost impossible task of uniting the


Association of Municipal Authorities, the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils in opposition to one part of the Bill, all may not be well in the State of Denmark.
A Bill that is designed to encourage local government to be more efficient, more effective, more cost-conscious and more mindful of the needs of ratepayers and others must, in essence, be good. I wish, first, to describe the two reservations that I have about the Bill and then to touch briefly on the Community Land Act 1975.
I start with my reservation about schedule 5, which relates to the proposed repeal of parts of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 and the Allotments Act 1925. For 600,000 council allotment holders there are 300 square yards of England's green and pleasant land, which represent an escape from the boredom of the high-rise block. It represents a breath of fresh air amidst the concrete jungle of anonymous urban life and an opportunity to out price the supermarkets. It represents a chance to return to the soil, to grow vegetables to supplement the shopping basket and to tend flowers to adorn homes.
I fear that the provisions of the Bill, if they remain unamended in Committee, will reduce substantially the number of allotments available in the future. The provisions for the repeal of parts of these two Acts deal with the proceeds arising from the sale of allotment land, which shall be used in the first instance for allotment purposes, the keeping of allotment accounts and the consent of my hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the disposal of allotment land.
If the repeal survives the Committee stage, it will enable local authorities, where they may be so minded, to conceal receipts from the sale of allotments from their ratepayers and not use such moneys for the benefit of allotments. These vital safeguards should continue to be vested in central Government so that the Court of Appeal continues to be available to allotment holders as an appeal of last resort against any action by the local authority.
I ask the House to bear in mind that allotment holders are, in the main, the elderly of our community, many of whom live in flats and other types of accom-

modation lacking what some of us have begun to take for granted—namely, our back gardens. There are thousands upon thousands of acres of derelict and despoiled urban land crying out for redevelopment, without the temptation to encroach upon fertile land which once played so vital a part in the "Dig for Victory" campaign.
I turn to my reservations about the cancellation of the Rating Revaluation Act 1892. If indeed the cancellation is the primogenitor of a complete and absolute review of our rating system, I welcome it. I invite my right hon. Friend when he replies to consider the anomalies that the cancellation of that Act might produce. It would produce a clamour for amendments to the laws of compensation. I refer especially to compensation for site value brought about by compulsory purchase orders and compensation based upon gross value assessment when the effect of section 32 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 is taken into account.
One further point that has not been touched upon so far is contained in part V of the Bill. I welcome that wholeheartedly. It seeks to extend domestic rate relief to more mixed hereditaments, and by that I presume is meant shops with maisonettes or flats above, and to extend the right to pay rates by instalment to the occupiers of non-domestic hereditaments. I presume that that also means commercial and small industrial premises. Surely that must be welcomed by the small business sector, shopkeepers and small industrialists throughout the length and breadth of the land.
I shall contain my final remarks to endorsing the breathtaking assassination of the Community Land Act 1975, so cleverly carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham). That Act has, over the past five years of its inactive life, been the dead hand of the building industry. The Act was born out of ideological dogma by the previous Labour Administration. In its brief appearance on the building sites of this country it has proved to be a major contributor to the present high rate of unemployment in the skilled sector of the industry. The Act was at once too complex, too cumbersome and too expensive. It was an Act which gave local authorities entrepreneurial powers that they were ill equipped to put into practice. It is


an Act which, in its pathetic lifetime, did not build one new home or create one new estate.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) reminded us that in 1947 they tried it—and it failed. In 1967 they tried it—and it failed. In 1975 they tried it—and it failed. I am referring to land nationalisation. In the words of the famous songstress,
When will they ever learn?
I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to return to the House and confirm that his party will never again attempt to reintroduce a Bill that has so patently proved to be a costly failure three times in the past 30 years.
With respect to the right hon. Gentleman in his absence, I was surprised by his contribution. Dedicated as he was to a future Labour Administration re-enacting a Bill designed to achieve the total nationalisation of our building land and, no doubt, subsequently in its wake, the nationalisation of agricultural land—that will inevitably follow as the night does the day—hefailed to realise that that will stultify the development and creation of new homes. While he waxed eloquent about the need for the community to have a benefit from betterment, he failed totally to realise that the Development Land Tax Act, which was produced in parallel and as a tandem to the Community Land Act by his Government, provides to the community, by way of 60 per cent. of the betterment, the gain that is rightfully the community's.
I welcome the reservation in the Bill. While we assassinate the Community Land Act, the power remains to reserve to local authorities the right to assemble land which will enable them to create small factory estates and help small business men to start up on their own. It will help to solve our still enormous but inherited unemployment problem.

Mr. George Foulkes: I am grateful to be called to speak at this time in order to add a Scottish voice to the debate, not just for oral variety but because there is a substantial Scottish interest in the Bill. This is a United Kingdom measure and I am sorry that more Scottish Members have not been present to participate in the debate. I

am glad to see the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) here today. Five of the 16 substantive parts of the Bill apply totally to Scotland and six apply in part to Scotland. Perhaps others should apply to Scotland as well. I shall return to that point later.
It is difficult to analyse the effect that the Bill will have on local government in Scotland. It is an untidy and bad Bill. We have a different system of local government in Scotland and I should have preferred to see a separate Bill, as in the case of education, to deal with that separate system. I examined the Bill in detail and my first reaction was to give thanks to the Lord—or at least to the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister or whoever is responsible ultimately for the inclusions or exclusions in the Bill—that sections 6 and 8 do not apply to Scotland. The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) raised that point.
However, on examining the Bill more carefully, it occurred to me that what is being proposed is similar to the system that currently exists in Scotland. Let people be warned. The Secretary of State for Scotland is currently waving a large favour at the Lothian region council which is not doing what it is told by this Right-wing reactionary Government. The council is being told that there will be dreadful penalties—its capital allocations will be cut and its revenue expenditure will be adjusted—if it does not do what it is told. Let friends from England and Wales beware. The existing system in Scotland is about to overtake them.
There are bad examples of the current system in England and Wales as well as in Scotland. For example, I was recently examining the position where a person employed in local government—say, a teacher or a social worker—becomes unemployed. I am talking about the economic effect—let us forget the social and other effects. I asked a question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the matter. An interesting fact that has not been widely publicised became clear. Someone earning about £5,000, which is a typical salary for a social worker or a teacher, after 10 years, with two children aged 6 years and 4 years and a mortgage of £10,000 over 25 years, will cost, in terms of his redundancy in lost revenue, over £1,500. In additional benefits payable to him and his family he will cost


over £3,300. That makes a total of £4,880 in extra public expenditure—a net gain of only £120.
There will be a loss to the community and to society of a valuable teacher, keeping class sizes down and keeping up the literacy standard or the loss of a social worker dealing with social problems. It is ridiculous even in economic terms, let alone in social terms, to put a man on the scrapheap. The theory is that these men will find jobs in the private sector. That is manifestly ridiculous, because jobs in the private sector are not available. They are being destroyed by the policy of Conservative Members.
I should like to deal with two specific points and ask why they do not apply to Scotland. Perhaps when the Minister winds up the debate he will answer my point. Why does not part II apply to Scotland? I believe that it is right that there should be a duty on local authorities to publish reports of their activities. I do not think it is an undue restriction, although it may be presently covered in Scotland. However, having been a member of a local authority for nine years, I do not believe that it is. I believe that there is no duty to publish reports.
Why does not part VII apply to Scotland? It deals with rebates under the Rating (Disabled Persons) (Scotland) Act and caravan sites for gipsies. Both are welcome provisions which should apply equally north of the border. It may be that they are both covered by existing provisions. The Birsay committee made representations concerning gipsies. If the provisions only apply by custom and normal habit, I wonder whether we should consider making them statutory in Scotland as well.
I move to a major issue in the Bill—the question of new town corporations. The Bill gives the corporations more power. I should have liked to see a Bill which included the abolition of new town corporations. I do not like non-elected authorities. I believe that new town corporations have an adverse effect on surrounding areas. When I was chairman of the education committee of the Lothian region, we spent more than two-thirds of our capital expenditure on education in the new town of Livingston, causing problems in the city of Edinburgh. Because they are an extra tier over and above regional and district

councils, they mean extra expenditure on officials and members of the authority. If we are to dance a few quangos out of our lives, we should have got rid of those rather than the important ones, such as the clean air quango, which, unfortunately, is got rid of by the Bill. New town corporations are a negation of democracy. They clash with the local authorities and create tremendous problems. Indeed, their existence has resulted in inner city deprivation in Glasgow and Edinburgh.
I come to part XVI of the Bill. Urban generation is vital because of the dead centres in the inner cities. However, it is ironic that proposals in Merseyside and docklands are modelled on the new town corporations that created the problems. I would support any sort of activity to encourage and develop the centres of our city, but I would question strongly whether that should be done by non-elected bodies. If the Government gave resources to the existing local authorities, if money was being pumped into them instead of being withdrawn, those democratically elected authorities could get on with their job.
I am suspicious of part X of the Bill, which suggests a public register of land. The idea is to force local authorities to sell off land. There are allegations of hoarding. I suggest that local authorities need land in reserve. With the ups and downs of the economy—the stop-go—it is important to have a reserve of land so that when a local authority receives an injection of finance it can get on with the building programme. It can then build the old people's homes and new schools on the sites it has reserved instead of having to wait for the necessary compulsory purchase of the land. It is not unused land; it is land in reserve. That is proper planning.
The Tories are keen to sell land off to private developers anxious to make a quick buck. We have seen that in Scotland recently where the Robroyson hospital—the case was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Spring-burn (Mr. Martin)—was sold for a mere £400,000.Already the developer who bought it has sold part of the site for £1½ million. That is what the Tories want to see. That is why they wish to sell off public authority land.
I believe in our democracy. It is an important part of our lives that is not just exercised every five years at a general election. It is not merely a matter of the period in between elections where a Prime Minister says that a Government have received a mandate and they will get on with the job. That is an elected dictatorship.
Democracy is a subtle balance of all the forces in our society. It is made up of central Government, which is an important force, pressure groups, industry, the unions and the voluntary organisations; and, in this context above all, our democracy embraces local government. Local councillors were elected, too, and they have a mandate to get on with the job. They are an important part of the local democracy that the Bill will stifle by taking away their powers. The Bill will destroy local government.
That fact has been mentioned by many Conservative councillors and the majority of hon. Members have acknowledged that fact in this debate. I hope—though I fear vainly—that they will express their feelings by coming through the Lobby with is. If they do not do that, I hope that major changes will be made in the Bill as it goes through Committee.

Mr. David Atkinson: As a former member of a county council and of a county borough council, I give the Bill a cautious welcome. I say "cautious" because I believe that many present and past members of local authorities, including those in the House, feel that successive national Governments in recent years have succeeded in reducing much of the best of local government, either through reorganisation or intervention. That has happened instead of local government being allowed to evolve naturally as it had done successfully for nearly a century.
I opposed the reorganisation of local government in 1972. I particularly regretted the abolition of the county borough councils, which, I believe, were probably among the finest units of local government administration anywhere in the Western world. It cannot be said that local government functions, as they apply to former county boroughs such as Bournemouth—which includes my con-

stituency—are being managed more efficiently today because their former functions are now divided between district and county. Nor do I believe that the previous Government's proposals for organic change would have improved matters.
I welcome the principle of clause 2(4), which will allow a ready comparison of unit costs between like authorities. The sole object of such comparison should be that the ratepayer is made aware of how efficient or expensive his local council is. The danger, however, is that the wrong conclusion can be jumped at too readily. No two local authorities are exactly alike. It is not possible to compare directly, for example, the unit costs of a borough such as Bournemouth—a coastal resort with a high proportion of elderly people and extremely dear housing compared with housing in the rest of the South-Western region—with the unit costs for social services and housing in a new town of similar size or an industrial borough. I believe that every set of statistics published for comparison of performance should make that plain.
It will, of course, be up to local councillors to explain that to their electorates. Too many councillors do not communicate as well as they might with their electors. The intention of the Bill to relax, or remove, certain controls or constraints on local government functions has, I have found, provoked a universal reaction among councillors that they are glad to know that they are free of such controls, though some of them say that they never appreciated that many of those controls had been imposed on them in the first place.
These proposals in the Bill will, I think, be regarded as only a start along the road to freeing local government of many of the statutory regulations that it must satisfy, often at great cost to the taxpayer. Many of those regulations, on analysis, will be found to be out of date and totally unnecessary and should have been scrapped a long time ago.
I hope that, in establishing comparisons of performance between local authorities and in reviewing statutory functions and responsibilities, my right hon. Friend will also compare the practices of local government in this country with practices abroad, especially in Europe. There may


be many ways in which other countries organise their local government better than we do. Many provide fewer services at less cost to their taxpayers. I believe that we can learn a great deal from them.
I welcome the better allowances for councillors, especially those with special responsibilities. However, I appreciate that doubts remain whether local councillors should be paid at all and that some people may be wrongly motivated if they are. In some instances these doubts are justified. Nevertheless, councillors should not be out of pocket for serving the community in such a time-consuming and costly way. Local authority service must not be the prerogative of the rich or the retired. They must include the widest possible cross-section of the local community, including younger people in tune with modern management techniques and the attitudes of their generation. The financial compensation for the loss of income and career prospects which election to a local authority undoubtedly encourages must be adequate. Up to now, it has not been adequate. It will not be adequate even as a result of the provisions in the Bill.
The proposed control of the capital expenditure of local authorities and the new block grant system is causing most concern because of the implied loss of local freedom. The Government were elected to control and ultimately to reduce public expenditure. They are imposing strict cash limits on themselves. If they are to succeed in this aim, I accept that they must apply similar controls to local government expenditure. Only the most extravagant councils should fear these controls—and rightly so. However, I hope that the Government will continue genuinely to listen to local authorities, to take note of their alternative proposals and, if necessary, to amend the Bill in Committee to achieve the right balance between central bureaucracy and local freedom.
I hope that in the not too distant future such measures will no longer be necessary because they will be superseded by a new system of financing local government and a reformed rating system based on the ability to pay.
Recent press reports indicate that the Government have effectively abandoned their pledge to abolish domestic rates. I hope that my right hon. Friend will con-

firm that the Government remain committed to that pledge in principle and that they will produce detailed proposals for consultation with local authorities, ready to be implemented as soon as the economy allows. If not, the long-suffering taxpayer, who is also the ratepayer, will lose all hope and will feel that he has been abandoned by the Government that he helped to elect.
This is an important Bill. It is aimed, amongst other things, at keeping local government expenditure under control. As such, it will be welcomed by the ratepayer.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: I shall follow the example of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and try to be extremely brief so that another hon. Member may he squeezed in before the Front Bench spokesmen wind up the debate.
Unlike most hon. Members who have spoken, I have not been a member of a local authority. I have often said that it has been an advantage for me to represent part of Birmingham not having been a member of the Birmingham city council.
I have had some harsh words to say about local authorities. But, as has been made clear by hon. Members on both sides of the House, many sincerely believe that our system of local government is the cornerstone of our democracy. The Government are perpetrating an act of vandalism on our democracy. If the provisions in the Bill are carried out to the extent that we fear, local government electors will rise up in their wrath because of what will happen to the local authorities. They will see that there is no redress for their grievances. Curtailment of the redress of individual citizens will be brought about by this "freedom-loving" Tory Government. It will not take long for the electorate to see through it.
Listening to some hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton), who spoke for the Liberal Party, one would think that clause 2 had something to do with open government. I do not see that the publication of information laid down in the Bill has anything to do with open government. The phrasing means that


the information given out is under the control of the central Government. The central Government will dictate what is published and how. It may be published on the back of the rate demand. That happens now in Birmingham. But council tenants do not get a rate demand. They do not see the breakdown of the information. This point is not covered in the Bill.
The first action of the present Tory leadership in Birmingham, on taking control of the city, a few years ago was to abolish publication of the "Brum Bugle", introduced by the Labour council. That went to every house in the city and explained how the city council worked and how money was raised and spent. It was claimed that the move saved public expenditure, but it curtailed local democracy.
The Government are not interested in open government. I hope that I am not doing an injustice to the Library. The briefs that they produce for hon. Members are first-class. But a sentence in the brief on clause 2 says:
The publishing of details of service costs will give ratepayers the opportunity to judge the workings of local government and to curb the power of pressure groups to dictate Government policy, according to the Secretary of State.
If the Secretary of State has said that the reason behind the publication of information in a form that he lays down is to curtail the action of pressure groups that are vital to our democracy, he has some questions to answer. The fact that someone somewhere will have to monitor the speeches of councillors in committees and council chambers up and down the country is a serious erosion of our civil liberties and one more step down the road to the corporate State.
I hope that the Minister will reply to the points raised from the Opposition Front Bench. Who will report to the Secretary of State on the content, the manner and the context of speeches made by councillors so that the Secretary of State can determine whether they are naughty boys and deserve to be subpoena'd and surcharged and to have their electorate damaged and vandalised because of the money they have spent and because their motives may have been misunderstood? There is no Hansard in

local government. Will they rely on the Press Association? They will not be able to rely on the local press.
My second point relates to direct labour organisations. My right hon Friend the Member for Birmingham Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) referred to the position in his consituency, but the matter affects the whole of Birmingham. Since the present Tory-controlled council abolished the direct building department, there have been catastrophic problems in Birmingham regarding the use of private contractors. In one example, scaffolding put up round a block of four houses by a private contractor fell down. The firm has been prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive. Such examples of the rip-off under the urban renewal scheme are legion. This has happened because private contractors, in the small way they operate—unlike large firms such as Wimpey—are not geared to servicing areas such as Birmingham. We were able to do the job on our own more efficiently, more cost-effectively and with some sort of surveillance.
The great advantage of direct labour departments, in terms of saving, is that they do not need a Christmas gifts list. Hon Members know of the case of the building company, Bryants from which hon. Members on both sides of the House were in receipt of gifts. There is no secret about that. It came out in the court case. I have not heard of a case of a local authority direct works department needing a Christmas gifts list with crates of whisky and such like. It does not operate like that. It does not need to operate in that way when it is under the control of democratically elected councillors open to the surveillance, of ratepayers and the local press. I can speak only for Birmingham, which has suffered greatly since the abandonment of the direct works department.
I shall vote against the Bill with a glad heart, knowing what I am doing. I have campaigned for the policy contained in clause 88 for five years. That is not Government policy. It is the result of a recommendation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Select Committee—namely, to remove from the Land Compensation Act 1973 the closing date of July 1975 for the making of claims.
More than 200 families in my constituency who live alongside the M6 did not claim in time. Throughout the country there are 10,000 citizens affected by road schemes who did not claim within the time limit. The main reason for that is the lack of publicity. One of my constituents who was building the motorway had moved on to build the next bit of motorway by the expiry date. There was a lack of publicity and no forms were put out. I took a case to the Ombudsman, but it was thrown out.
Another case in connection with the M2 opened up the whole question 18 months ago. The previous Government were in the process of reviewing the Select Committee's report and I understand that they were about to make a similar decision to that which the Government have made.
I wholeheartedly welcome clause 88, although it seems to rely on the whim of the Minister. He has to be satisfied that the publicity given is not sufficient. However, we can argue about that later. I will take no truck from any Tory who says that I am voting against the interest of my constituents because I oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, having campaigned for clause 88 for five years.
The Bill sounds the death knell of local democracy. I hope that there will be many amendments in Committee. If only a few Conservative Members who have spoken today would follow their voices into the Lobby, the Bill would not get a Second Reading.

Mr. Bill Walker: I am glad to have the opportunity to put the Scottish voice from the Conservative Benches. I welcome the Bill because the broad objective of part I is sensible devolution, which relaxes central Government control and allows local authorities to provide services with the minimum of central Government interference. As a Scot, I believe in devolution which strengthens the relationship between local authorities and their local communities and allows local authorities, ratepayers and electors to have a more meaningful say in the kind of services which are provided. The Bill goes a long way towards doing that. It will also improve the general level of information available to councillors and ratepayers, which in turn will help them to play a

full and constructive role in their local authorities. I believe that councillors have a key role to play in our democracy.
I have some reservations. The Bill does not relax enough of central Government's control. However, it is a step in the right direction. Reference has been made to the sale of hospital land. That sale was carried out under the Labour Administration.
I am delighted to see that the Bill tackles the problem of direct labour organisations. For far too long, British taxpayers and ratepayers have been sustaining ineffective and inefficient direct labour organisations which have been protected from the real world. They have, in the main, been operating on the economics of the bottomless bag of gold, that is to say, the public purse—the open drain down which all the losses have gone.
The public purse is not bottomless. The bag of gold does not exist. The Bill will ensure that direct labour organisations become more accountable. In future they will be run as separate and accountable trading bodies and must tender and operate in fair competition with the private sector. The sensible and efficient direct labour managers and work-people will welcome this opportunity to show that they can compete. Those who do not have faith in their ability to compete will make a lot of noise, but the ratepayers and taxpayers will not be fooled. They will recognise that it is just another attempt by individuals and groups of individuals to protect out-of-date work practices.
Clause 63 allows the Secretary of State, as he thinks fit, to make provision for the payment of a fee for planning permission. That will be acceptable only if the delays and other areas of aggravation are removed. The delays and the aggravation are the real planning problem.
I wish to draw attention to the glaring anomaly that exists in Scottish rating law. Owner-occupied shoots are rated, whereas they are not under English law. This difference in the laws of the two countries creates acrimony and a sense of injustice and is seen to be absurd. It is all the more absurd when we realise that many of the assessments made are for farm land which is quite unsuitable for shooting and where no shooting takes place.


I should declare a non-interest here. I have never been shooting in my life. What is more, I have no intention of going shooting.
I also suggest that the rights and duties of the water authorities should be updated—especially those of the water authorities in Scotland—to bring them into line with the other statutory bodies. Could not an amendment have been made to the Water (Scotand) Act? In particular, water authorities do not enter into way leave agreements or make way leave payments. Farmers in Scotland cannot understand way there should be a difference between water pipes and other pipes which cross their land.
Finally, I suggest that the Government should consider water authorities' liability for compensation for burst pipes and their failure to pay interest on damages or compensation for drainage after a specific period. These are aspects of the Bill that apply to Scotland. I hope that the Minister will consider them.

Mr. Robert Litherland: The Bill is a slimmer version of, but only a slight variation on, the original. What is abundantly clear is that the objectionable clauses remain. That indicates that the Government have taken no notice of the vigorous protests, advice and suggestions from local authorities and their associations. The consultation document was a sheer waste of time. It was a fallacy.
The Government's proposed intention to give local authorities more responsibility with less bureaucratic control from central Government is far removed from reality. The Bill gives powers to the Secretary of State for the Environment on many vital issues but at the same time erodes the rights of local government. That is happening in face of the overwhelming objections from councillors, officers and local authority associations. There is a fundamental shift from local government to central Government that is neither healthy nor desirable.
In this wide-ranging debate, and in the short time that I have, I should like to consider part II and the attack made on direct labour organisations. All parties are agreed that DLOs should justify their existence and be seen to give value for

money. However, that issue should not be confused by considering them to be merely profit-making organisations.
The one basic element that is overlooked in these arguments is the standard of service provided by direct labour organisations, which is immeasurable in financial terms. Direct labour is there to provide a service and not a profit. It has to meet obligations as a model employer. The Bill disregards the social benefits of a decasualised labour force which provides apprenticeship training, employment for the disabled, superannuation and welfare benefits, safety and health, all of which are accountable costs and have to be included in competitive tendering. How can direct labour organisations provide these standards of service, meet their obligations, give secure employment and all the social benefits I have mentioned, and compete with contractors who do not?
In Manchester, direct work on new construction has provided the labour which has built 21,000 houses, 60 schools and massive recreational projects. It has also built police stations and fire stations. Most of that work has been won through competitive tendering, and the treasurer's figures show a vast saving to the ratepayers of the city.
We employ about 5,000 and provide training for over 500 apprentices. Apprentices, under the supervision of craftsmen, have built sheltered accommodation for the elderly in the city of Manchester. Where would one get that in the private sector? We provide jobs for the disabled. It is not featherbedding but horses for courses. Where would one get that in the private sector? The performance in the private sector has been abysmal. Direct labour gives us all the benefits of a model employer and it is all at risk because of the restrictions of the Bill.
The Bill makes the mistake of assuming that we are comparing like with like. How can comparisons be made with the private sector when it works under different rules and disciplines? Direct labour organisations cannot hire and fire men or negotiate new bonus schemes on every contract. They are limited to working within their own boundaries. They cannot invest moneys in lucrative ventures or switch resources and finance. They cannot buy work in an economic depression


in the building industry, nor can they enter into suicidal tendering.
If we are to compare like with like, will the Government insist that there should be no lump labour? Will every firm competing with direct labour have to train apprentices, take its quota of disabled people and give the same welfare benefits as are given by direct labour organisations? Will direct labour organisations be allowed to compete outside their own boundaries?
Before reorganisation, we could build complete fire stations and police stations. After reorganisation, if the education authority had gone to the county with a request for buildings we would not have been able to build schools within our own city through our own works department. Will direct labour be allowed to carry out speculative building and tender for such buildings as Centre Point? Will the Bill mean that work now negotiated with the private sector will have to be tendered for in open competition?
The Bill's proposals to force direct labour organisations to tender for every contract valued at over £50,000, a figure that has not been updated since 1975, will mean increased overheads, extra staff to work the system and additional administration and staff requirements to assess costs, raise accounts and settle them.
At the same time, are turn of 5 per cent. on capital employed is insisted upon even when the rate required in the private sector may be much lower. How can DLOs remain economically viable with all the restraints that are to be imposed? They cannot, and the Secretary of State then has the power to close them down completely.
Do the Government realise that a considerable amount of maintenance work has already gone to the private sector? Will that work be included in the one-third that will go out to tender? Where specialist work is required or where there is difficulty in recruiting, will that work go out to tender? Perhaps the Minister will make that clear when he winds up.
Manchester's maintenance section attends to over half a million day-to-day repairs, provides emergency services 365 days a year and meets special situations such as storm damage. When the IRA bombed the law courts, direct labour was on the scene, and over the weekend the

law courts were made habitable for Monday morning.
We have an emergency flying squad which can be called out at all hours in all weathers. Sometimes it has to work in appalling conditions doing disgusting work in an emergency. Will this work go out to competitive tender?
This Bill will eventually close down many direct labour organisations. We have about 300,000 building workers already unemployed. With the Bill there will be another massive dose of redundancies. This is while 1 million people wait on council house waiting lists.
A top local government official who has spent all his life in local government has said:
I cannot emphasise too strongly the damage to local government in the financial provisions of this Bill. It will affect the whole fabric of local government as we have known it. If local government as a democratic institution is worth preserving as part of the English heritage, then the financial provisions of this Bill must be resisted.
So it is under the guise of giving local government more freedom and making it more accountable that the Bill will enable the Government to achieve their economic targets. These claims are demonstrably false and bear no resemblance to the reality, and it should be—I emphasise this—the Government's obligation to show the need for the controls that are enshrined in the Bill.

9 pm

Mr. Gordon Oakes: We have had a full and varied discussion of this monster Bill. I use the word "monster" in every sense. It is monstrous in size and monstrous in its provisions. It is a Bill whose main provisions are bitterly and vigorously opposed by all three local government associations, all of them completely Conservative-controlled. It is opposed by individual authorities, of varied political complexions, as so many hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out. It is opposed by trade unions, by individual pressure groups, by the Liberal Party and by the Welsh National Party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"]—as well as by the Labour Benches.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State that from what we have heard in this debate it is a Bill with very few friends indeed, even on the Conservative Benches. Apart from the hon.


Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), who confined his remarks to the repeal of the Community Land Act, and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen), who was mainly concerned with the provision relating to the urban development corporation in Liverpool, the other speeches were varied and mixed in their reception. Some were speeches of almost outright hostility from the Conservative Benches, especially those of some Conservative Members who have experience in local government. That was the link of the attacks—those Conservative Members who have experience in some form with local government, and particularly with its grass roots.
I listened with great care to the excellent speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). He has not only experience as a Secretary of State for the Environment but considerable experience as a county councillor and a local authority member. That is why he was so critical of so many of the Bill's provisions. And it was not only him. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), who has a distinguished record in county council work and administration, and the hon. Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), both of whom have served on local authorities in one way or another, were all highly critical of the Bill's main provisions. I hope that the Secretary of State will take good note of the lack of any measure of support for the Bill even from his own side of the House.
One of the things that has struck me during the debate, especially when listening, to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, is that every clause of the Bill takes a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If what the right hon. Gentleman was saying in his honeyed words in moving the Second Reading was true—that there are a few overspending authorities and that, therefore, he must take powers to curb them; that some authorities do not give sufficient information, and, therefore, he must take powers; and that he will be setting up two development corporations, one in London and one in Liverpool—why do we have this huge Bill whose provisions go far wider than that? I think the reason is—and I regret to say this—that there are sinister provisions behind the Bill, and my view has been

reinforced. The right hon. Gentleman was given every opportunity by my right hon. Friend, the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to correct or at least to explain what he meant when he talked about judging a local authority by speeches, and he insisted that that should go into Hansard. Indeed, he repeated that he meant "speeches".
Are we to reach the position where a chief executive or a leader of a party in a council will tell a young councillor to curb his speech because the Secretary of State might get to know and the authority might be fined and penalised? The right hon. Gentleman is laughing. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the word "speeches"? I think it is an absolutely disgraceful provision in any Bill in a democratic country, particularly in this country, where curbs of that nature can be put forward by the Secretary of State so that councillors are frightened of expressing a true opinion because, if they express that opinion, the ratepayers of the area may suffer at the whim of the Secretary of State.
There are some provisions, but very few, in the Bill with which the Opposition can agree. My right hon. Friend mentioned the provision for the payment of councillors with special responsibilities. I hope that it will apply not only on the "government" side of the council, as it were, because oppositions, whether Labour or Conservative, have a considerable amount of work to do. I hope that that fact is taken into account when the decision is made over these extra payments. We can go along with that.
I agree with some of the provisions for compensation. The point has been made with regard to the cut-off date in 1975. I agree with that. Those are just crumbs in the Bill when one considers the enormity of other provisions in it.
I shall start with some of the things with which we mildly disagree before I go on to those on which we have a major disagreement with the Government—even clause 1, which, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman, relieves local authorities of some of their obligations and duties. Incidentally, in normal language, if one is told that one is relieved of one's duty, it means that one is being sacked. In effect, in the Bill that is what the Secretary of


State is doing to the local authorities in relieving them of their responsibilities.
I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) and the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) in what they said with regard to allotments. What is proposed goes completely counter to the trend of leisure, a trend that helps the nation, whereby people who have no land of their own can take unused, derelict land, grow good, useful food on that land and enjoy themselves in the process. Clearly, what will happen in many authorities is that those allotments will be sold off for development.
The Bill does not go back 40 or 50 years; it goes back over 150 years. One of the repeals proposed in the Bill is that of a protection given to allotment holders in 1830 under the Enclosures Act. In this first part, also, I would not object to some of the duties of local authorities that are to be removed. I object very much to the removal of the provision of the Secretary of State's overall direction on pollution and clean air.
I do that because these are two issues which clearly go well beyond the boundaries of the local authority concerned. Other local authorities are affected. If a local authority does not carry out its duty, its next-door neighbour will suffer from its smoke and pollution. That is why the power is given to the Secretary of State. Some may think that there could be agreement about clause 1, but we cannot agree to it.
Clause 2 deals with the provision of information. We accept the need to provide information. It is useful for local councils to detail their manpower and how long a planning application takes for instance. Is it beyond the wit of a councillor, whether Labour or Conservative, to ask for that information and to get it? We do not need clause 2. Any councillor can ask for such information and receive it. Can the Minister say which authorities do not supply information? Some Conservatives have said that by setting up public relations departments and distributing information to ratepayers local authorities are wasting money. Information can be provided without the rigmarole of clause 2. The local authorities could have their own codes of practice or the Secretary of State could state that he wants specific information to be given.
Instead of that, the Bill sets out a series of regulations to provide information. Regulations to provide information and the form in which the information should be given mean mumbo-jumbo jargon. One does not receive free information in ordinary language but jargon, not because the local authority tries to prevent information being given to the public but because the local authority must comply with the Secretary of State's regulations and cannot move an inch away from them. Such a system will lead to a reduction in the amount of information given to the public.
Clause 3 deals with direct works—an issue which is of interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I agree that local authorities should be more accountable for direct works. My Government made proposals that were similar in some respects but they were not draconian. There should be accountability. However, are the Government wise to include maintenance in addition to ordinary building in their proposals? They include maintenance not only by building departments but by highways departments, for example. As the hon. Member for Edge Hill said, builders want the big contracts. They do not want to mend old Mrs. Jones's door hinge or to put a washer on her tap. They will not do that type of job. In many authorities council houses are in a deplorable state. This applies to houses in areas which are both Labour and Conservative controlled. That deplorable state will become even worse if forms have to be filled in and competitive tenders obtained to complete simple maintenance work.

Mr. Latham: May we be reminded why the Labour Government did not introduce the proposals mentioned by the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes)?

Mr. Oakes: We were overtaken by the election. We were anxious to allow direct works departments to compete properly. We did not want to tie their hands behind their backs in the way in which the Secretary of State proposes in clause 3. Maintenance should be excluded. We shall press that view in Committee. Apart from that, does the Secretary of State stick to the £50,000 figure without provision for inflation? That figure was fixed five years ago. Surely there is need for an amendment. Far from reducing


the number of staff of local authorities, there will be a massive increase in nonproductive staff merely to administer clause 3. Instead of money being spent on repairs, on improvements and on building, the money will be spent in the offices in order to provide returns to the Secretary of State so that he cannot exercise his draconian power under clause 14 and close down the direct building works departments of local authorities, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants. That is the sort of power that the Secretary of State is adopting.
I, too, have mixed feelings on the planning provisions. We must look philosophically at the question whether we impose a charge on a citizen for carrying out his duty and submitting a plan. I am concerned—the Government are right to tackle the problem—that the large development corporations submit plans with only slight variations year after year to local authorities, which cost an enormous amount of manpower. That is a different case from that of the man who wishes to erect a garage or who wishes to change his front door. I hope that the Government will agree that there should be some cut-off point before charges are applied.
Those are some of the less contentious points. I now turn to some of the more contentious issues, in clauses 6 and 8, but especially clause 6. I shall not deal with these at any length because many hon. Members have already spoken about them.
Local councillors are elected on almost the same franchise as that of hon. Members. They are democratically elected. We share in government and we have always shared in government with local councillors. The provision contained in clause 6 totally and fundamentally upsets the balance between national and local government.
Many hon. Members have asked the Government—I implore the Minister of State to reply to this point—how the Department of the Environment will assess need. The Government cannot bring this sort of provision before the House without any explanation of how that need is to be assessed. It will be assessed not by councillors but by an official in the Department of the Environment, perhaps by means of a scale or a

points scheme. One does not know how he will make an assessment of what is happening in Manchester, Liverpool, Cornwall or elsewhere.
The local authority associations are bitterly concerned about this attack upon them and about the provisions for a unitary grant. We put the question of a unitary grant before local authorities because the Layfield inquiry recommended it. The local authorities were as opposed to it when the Labour Government were in power as they are now when the Conservative Government are in power. The Labour Government wisely dropped that provision. We agree with Conservative Members that the rate support grant in its present make-up has many faults, but the provision contained in clause 6 has many more faults. Its main fault is that it takes away democracy from local councils. Local authority assoctiations and individual local authorities will fight it bitterly.
The language of the Bill leaves a lot to be desired. The provisions on new towns are merely provisions to force new towns to sell off land they have acquired.
This is the language that we find in clause 101(1) of the Bill:
The Secretary of State may direct a development corporation or the Commssion to pay to him, on the date specified in the direction, such sum as is so specified.
That is in a Bill introduced by a British Government. These are more like the peremptory demands of a godfather of the mafia.
Clause 105(5) talks about the Secretary of State's powers and it states:
Before giving a direction under subsection (4) above, the Secretary of State shall consult the corporation,"—
I am glad of that—
unless he is satisfied that because of urgency consultation is impracticable.
That is the sort of power that the Secretary of State is seeking to take upon himself in the Bill. He is asking the House to give him that sort of power.
I now come to part XVI of the Bill, which to my mind is as bad as part VI, although for some reason the local government associations do not seem to have paid sufficient regard to the draconian powers taken under part XVI, which relates to the setting up of urban development corporations.
The Secretary of State told the House that he intends to set up two such corporations, one in London Dockland and the other in my own area of Merseyside, in Liverpool. If that is all he intends to do, why did he not put the provisions in the Bill? Instead, under part XVI, he takes upon himself the power to set up an urban development corporation wherever he wishes. Clause 108(1) states:
If the Secretary of State is of opinion that it is expedient in the national interest to do so, he may by order made by statutory instrument designate any area of land as an urban development area.
Why should he seek to take such wide powers throughout the length and breadth of the country to deal with this matter if all he has in mind is the setting up of development corporations in London and in Liverpool, which could be provided for specifically in the Bill?
The words that I find bizarre in a local government Bill are the words
that it is expedient in the national interest to do so".
They are peculiar words to find in a local government Bill. One could understand such words being used in a Bill dealing with security, terrorism, or something of that nature, but surely in a local government Bill the primary concern is with the interest of the local people in the area.
Why, then, have these unusual, bizarre words been imported into the Bill? Could it be that what the Secretary of State has in mind is something far worse? Could it be that, where there is a recalcitrant authority, he wishes to have the power to set up, in the national interest, a development corporation—a creature of his own making, under his own control?
The Secretary of State loves to laugh at these matters, but why is he asking for these powers? Hon. Members in all parts of the House—not merely on the Opposition Benches—are entitled to challenge those powers because they are most dangerous powers to give to any Secretary of State.
My hon. Friends from Liverpool and from London are concerned about the setting of these urban development corporations. We should be extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for the way in which he proposes to do it. He has implied that he intends to set up urban

development corporations for London and for Liverpool. But he has no need to do that. He can use his powers under clause 113 to make one urban development corporation responsible for another area, if he so wishes. He can tack on another area to an existing urban development corporation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) should be grateful that there will be a Liverpool development corporation for Liverpool, and that it will not be administered by the London boys. My hon. Friends in London are also interested, both London and Liverpool having docklands. It might, indeed, be expedient, in the interests of economy, to run them both together. The Secretary of State has not done it and we are grateful for that, but in which area will he strike next? In which area will he seek to take away democratic rights? I assure him that he will have a great many problems on his hands if he conies to Widnes. He will take away the democratic rights of local councillors who have been elected by local people and he will impose on them a development corporation.
An announcement was made that affects London. The Secretary of State should listen to those Opposition Members who represent London constituencies. They have all told him of the problems involved. I endorse their feelings as those problems are equally true of Merseyside. They have all said that the problem is not lack of co-ordination between local authorities but lack of money. Local authorities, whether in London or Liverpool, could get on with the job if they had the resources and the money.
The only good news that I heard today was the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) as vice-chairman of the corporation. That is a good appointment. I know my right hon. Friend very well. If the Secretary of State thinks that his appointment will provide a soft option, he has another thing coming. My right hon. Friend will fight to the death for Londoners. If the development corporation acts in the interests of big business and against those of the people, he will be the first to stand on the Secretary of State's doorstep vociferously and bitterly to complain.
The balance between local democracy and national democracy will be sadly upset if the Bill goes through. I hope that there will be adequate and proper discussion of the Bill. I assure the Government that neither my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook nor I will waste time in Committee. We shall not make spurious points of order. We shall not make long speeches. We want debate and discussion. However, we want to debate the whole Bill. It is a pity that the Secretary of State did not take up the offer to debate the main constitutional provisions of the Bill on the Floor of the House. The Bill might then have been properly debated by all hon. Members.
The other provisions in this monster of a Bill will involve a considerable amount of time. The Government tried to conceal this important piece of legislation by having it debated in the House of Lords. They failed. I implore the Government not to use the guillotine. If the Secretary of State imposes a guillotine, local authorities will react. They are already completely opposed to the provisions. If the House and the Committee do not have the opportunity fully to debate such important provisions, it will be a disgrace to democracy.
With the support of the Conservative-controlled local authority associations, individual local authorities and many hon. Members who feel uneasy about the Bill and who respect local government, we shall save local government. Those who are true democrats and who respect true democracy will support us. A distinguished Conservative, Sir Gervas Walker, made an announcement earlier today. We may have some peculiar allies, but we are fighting together to save local government. I assure the Government that we shall fight dictatorial diktats to the bitter end.

The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): I shall begin with a point that will be generally accepted. No one would dispute that this is an important Bill and that several very important issues have been raised.
It has been suggested that the Bill is too long, but that has not prevented hon.

Members from wishing to add their interests to it. The Bill does not cover everything. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) asked about the abolition of domestic rates, provision for which is not in the Bill. We made it clear during our election campaign, and my right hon. Friend emphasised the point, that reduction in direct taxation must take priority. However, I confirm that a review is in hand in my Department of the options to pursue that objective.
I believe that it will be helpful if I make clear the Government's objectives in the Bill.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It appears that the Minister is not giving way.

Mr. King: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, a considerable number of right hon. and hon. Members have raised points. The right hon. Gentleman has just walked in to the debate and will understand if I do not give way to him at the expense of replying to some of those points.

Mr. Barnett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. King: I am not giving way. The right hon. Gentleman has just walked in, and it would be an abuse of the House not to reply to the debate.
Our aim is to clarify what we consider to be a proper balance and relationship between central Government and local government. But it is not only that. We also wish to clarify the relationship between central Government and local government and the local elector—the ratepayer, the citizen and the taxpayer—and the accountability of local government and central Government to him. I hope that all hon. Members will bear that important qualification in mind.
It has been suggested that certain provisions contain a basic challenge to the autonomy of local government. I entirely reject that suggestion and shall seek to explain why that is a misrepresentation of the situation.
We have made clear, as any responsible Government must, that there must


be financial ceilings. There must be an overall financial umbrella within which central Government must control the economy. The scale of local government makes that inevitable. Within that limit we are determined to ensure the maximum freedom for local authorities to determine their priorities as they are best able to do. We do not assume, as a certain right hon. Gentleman once said, that Whitehall knows best. However, we are responsible for funds that are centrally distributed, and we must discharge that responsibility.
Among non-contentious issues raised was our response to the Robinson committee. We thought that it was right to respond, but it is a limited response. Some hon. Members felt that we should have gone further. It was a difficult judgment to make, but we grasped the nettle.
Another non-contentious matter concerns capital controls. The original proposals in the consultation document were the subject of vigorous representations. We have succeeded in considerably modifying those. It is fair to say that, on balance, the proposals are now reasonably welcome to local government. Although it might prefer to stay exactly as it is, it accepts that there are considerable freedoms contained in the proposals. The allocations are as before. Local authorities will have total freedom on capital receipts. Although allocations will come to them under five separate blocks, in their hands they will become one block—in other words, 100 per cent. virement. They will have discretion to allocate priorities.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) raised the question of the ultimate fallback position of ultra vires. There is a fallback safeguard. A criticism of the previous proposals is that there would be an automatic situation of ultra vires even if an accidental or marginal overspend occurred. We accepted representations on that, and under the present proposals there are considerable safeguards.
Only an authority that is quite determined flagrantly to disregard the rules and the allocation will find itself at risk of being alleged to be acting ultra vires. It is a three-stage procedure so that there is no question of an accidental or mar-

ginal overspend being affected by that. It is a last resort only.

Mr. Hattersley: Mr. Hattersley rose—

Mr. King: I do not know how many times the right hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene. He may wish to intervene later on other points. I shall let him intervene now.

Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Gentleman may well be right. I wish to ask a question in the unemotional and un-polarised manner in which he has described the situation. He says that it is a fall-back position that will be operated only when councils are in flagrant abuse of the rules. That worries many Members on both sides of the House. How can a judgment be made on what constitutes a flagrant abuse? If it were a figure, a judgment could be made. If it were objective, that is understandable. If it is subjective, such as "flagrant", it worries many people that a Secretary of State has the right to judge. Will the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of how the decision will be made?

Mr. King: Allocations will be made, and together with those allocations there will be total freedom on capital receipts, and freedom, for the first time, for an additional 50 per cent. of the sale of council houses to be attributed to it. There will also be a 10 per cent. under-spend-overspend carry-over or carry-under from the previous year.
If an authority overspent by some 5, 6 or 7 per cent., that would normally be deducted from its next year's allocation. That would be standard procedure. If it went way beyond that, we would draw the authority's attention to the fact that it was way beyond the allocation and the margin of allowance over and above the allocation. If the authority failed to respond to such representations, we would have to consider the position. If we took action, we would have to bring such action before the House. I hope that the matter is now clear.
I turn to a more contentious item, namely, block grant. There has been much misrepresentation in the debates that we have had on the matter. It has been represented as the end of autonomy for local government. I know that the


previous Labour Administration considered the possibility of imposing individual cash limits on individual local authorities. They considered also fixing the rate increases of individual local authorities. There are those who advocate such action. That would certainly be the end of the autonomy of local government. It would mean that central Government would fix the expenditure of individual local authorities.
Our proposals do no such thing. Our proposals are concerned with the allocation of public money that is given to local authorities. It is not an argument between individual local authorities and the Government. It is an argument in which the Government are standing in the middle, having to determine how a certain finite pool of public money should be most fairly distributed between individual authorities. If one authority is to receive more, it will not get it from the Government. It will get it from another authority. Our responsibility is to ensure fairness in the allocation between authorities. That is an important procedure.
Our proposals leave with local authorities the full freedom to fix their own levels of expenditure and to determine their own rates. What we are concerned to do is to prevent, as happens under the present position, high spenders pre-empting resources away from the more prudent authorities. That practice, which exists at present, must surely be rejected by any hon. Member who considers the matter in a sensible manner.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does the Minister agree that in the past the high-spending authorities have been those with the greatest needs in their areas, and that the consequence of his proposals is that he will be taking money away from the areas of greatest need and contributing it to areas where there is much less need?

Mr. King: The previous system has equated need with expenditure. We do not accept that total correlation, although many hon. Members have observed that our proposal makes allowance for that because of the difficulties of making an absolutely accurate assessment of need. We do not accent the generalisation that automatically, high-spending authorities are spending money because they desperately need to do so and that

there is not extravagance in some of those authorities.
We all respect the views and experience of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). I feel that it would be fair to say, having listened carefully to his speech, that there is no difference between us on the objective that we seek. What concerns him is the method that we are employing. He suggested that the main legislation that we are proposing is too general and not specific enough. With great respect, I suggest that it is more specific than the 1974 Act.
Many hon. Members may wonder whether the present system is too rigid and cannot be manipulated, but they have only to look at what the previous Government did to the rate support grant distribution. There is no control over the allocation between resources and needs elements. That is a crucial factor which affects distribution between authorities greatly. There is no control over the London claw-back. That can have a substantially damaging effect, and that was the thing that damaged the shire counties in the previous Government's term of office. If the domestic element is changed that, too, has considerable effect on the distribution.

Mr. Rippon: Mr. Rippon rose—

Mr. King: I should like to complete my remarks, if my right hon. and learned Friend will allow me.
I know that my right hon. and learned Friend is concerned about our proposals. He is anxious, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), about the consultation with local authority associations. He was anxious to have an assurance of further discussions with the associations. I repeat what my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate: that the local authority associations have suggested that there may be other means which they would prefer to use to meet the objectives of the block grant. In other words, they accept the objectives but they feel that there may be other ways of achieving them. They have not yet put forward any alternatives that are agreed among themselves which would meet those objectives. If they are able to put forward an alternative, we shall consider it carefully and discuss it with them.

Mr. Rippon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that assurance. I am glad that there will be further discussions with local authorities. May I add that I did not complain that the proposals were not specific enough? I said that they were unworkable.

Mr. King: I shall address myself to that matter now. My right hon. and learned Friend talked about the problems of needs assessment, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook also discussed the problem of needs assessment and asked why we had not brought the full, final package to the House so that it could be fully evaluated. He knows the way in which needs assessments are calculated. Every year it is an extensive process which lasts throughout the year, culminating in the final announcement by the Secretary of State of the rate support grant allocations.
This year we are changing the formula, and we have made clear to the local authority associations that we wish to develop this with them. We are already starting work on that. On the one hand, the right hon. Gentleman criticises us for not consulting the local authority associations. He cannot have it both ways and say that we should have brought an agreed package to the House in advance. It will take considerable time to develop. He asked whether we could impose a formula if we failed to get agreement.
The procedure every year is by way of consultation in working groups, with study and discussion. I am not sure in which years there has been agreement though on a number of occasions there has been disagreement between the Government and some of the associations. Sometimes one association has differed from another. In each case it may be necessary, ultimately, for the Secretary of State to determine the final formula. We might be forced finally to take that decision.
This is a complicated matter. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant), whose knowledge of financial matters we respect, was frank enough to say that he did not understand it. The House should appreciate that. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch spoke of close-ending the resources element. That was a very technical point and hon.

Members on the Opposition Benches who had read their briefs said "Hear, hear". They thought it was a splendid idea. I hope that they have worked out what it means, because that is much more draconian than anything we are suggesting under the block grant mechanism. It is a very savage instrument indeed, which places anabsolute requirement on the accuracy of the needs assessment. It is an absolute cut-off, which takes no account of the point made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann), which was that expenditure should equal need. It is an extremely draconian action. However, if that is what hon. Gentlemen want—we did not dream that we could possibly go that far—we would like to hear from them. Otherwise, I suggest that, on a complicated matter such as this, they consider carefully what is put before them and make sure that they want to support it.
The right hon. Member for Spark-brook raised the issue of the transitional arrangements. He made the point that it was unfair on councillors if they did not know at the beginning of the year exactly what the allocation for their councils would be. He seems quite unaware that, under the present resource claw-back system, late in each year the more prudent authorities have had money clawed back from them without their having any opportunity to raise the matter, even through their representatives in Parliament. That claw back has been effected not by Parliament and not even by the Minister. It has been done by an administrative mathematical calculation in my Department.
I would have thought that our proposals to put a clear proposition before the House by giving clear warning, putting it into the Bill, seeking parliamentary approval as the Bill progresses towards Royal Assent and then laying an order was a much more satisfactory method of dealing with this process.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of the 119p. That notional uniform rate is effectively the average expectation for rating. The fact that some authorities are above it should not come as a blinding surprise to any amateur mathematicians here. If that figure is the average, it means that at least half of the authorities will have a rate above that figure. That is why we said that


the figure would be substantially above that. There will be clearly published rules under which any question of tapering of grant will fall.

Mr Hattersley: Mr Hattersley rose—

Mr. King: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to deal with one further specific point. He asked me a number of questions. He must take the answers. He asked whether this figure would be revised. The answer is "No".

Mr. Hattersley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to get this clear. Is he saying that a council which imposes—if that is the right word—a rate of more than 119p in the pound ought not to assume that it is in jeopardy and ought not to assume that there will be a reduction in its rate support grant supplementary award in September? Is the right hon. Gentleman now saying that a rate of 119p in the pound or a figure in excess of that does not put a council in jeopardy?

Mr. King: The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook asks a naive question. In the last rate support grant debate he waved at us a circular that set out the rules quite clearly. He will remember that the figure was substantially in excess of 119p and that there would be a power of waiver for those who had traditionally higher rates but who had clearly made an effort to make economies in expenditure.
The reason why this cannot be determined is exactly why it cannot be determined for resource clawback. Resource clawback cannot be determined until every authority has set its rates. That is the present situation. It would help in our discussion of these matters if right hon. and hon. Members who chose to criticise our proposals understood the present system better. Their arguments might then have more validity.
Accountability is an important part of the Bill. The publication of information will be of great value, not only to councils and councillors but to electors. It is meaningful not only on the absolute figures which are published but on the comparability of information that is put forward. Nothing on its own makes

absolute sense. Perhaps I may give one example on planning. One of the statistics on planning is that 70 per cent. of authorities processed 90 per cent. of planning applications within eight weeks. Another 10 per cent. of authorities processed only 10 per cent. of applications within eight weeks. I suggest that that one comparative statistic invites questions as to whether the 10 per cent. of authorities are providing the services that the others manage to provide.

Mr. Guy Barnett: The question is: who ought to be asking the questions—the electorate of the local authority or the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. King: We hope that the electorate and councillors will ask the questions. Our role is to try to ensure that the information is on a comparable basis.

Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as Parliament has laid down a statutory period of two months for determining planning applications, Parliament has a right to ask these questions?

Mr. King: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We hope in this way to help performance in a number of ways.
Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) and the hon. Members for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) and Manchester, Central (Mr. Lither land), referred to direct labour organisations. Some said that direct labour organisations were carrying excessive burdens, whereas others said that they were creating unfair competition for the private sector. Both arguments strengthen our case for saying that there should be better accountability and more clarity about the operations of direct labour organisations. We hope that there will be general support for CIPFA's proposals based on the recommendations that the previous Labour Government warmly endorsed but did nothing about. We intend to deliver on this point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) asked whether we could publish the regulations in advance of Report. We are having close discussions with the local authority associations. If we can do that in time, we shall do so.
We hope that our proposals will help to simplify and clarify the planning procedure. We propose to end the overlap of district and county councils. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes that we hope and believe that there are adequate safeguards for the county to protect the structure plans. We are to modify the general development order that we shall put before the House. We hope that that will help to take the more minor developments out of the planning system.
Urban development corporations have attracted considerable attention in the debate. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) suggested that they were not an exact parallel with the new towns because there was a different procedure for setting them up. He suggested that the procedure of laying an order before the House would cause chaos and delay. I suggest that the new towns procedure would cause infinitely more delay. As we were attacked by his hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) on the risk of a hiatus in setting them up, I hope that he will feel that on balance we have chosen the right proposal.
I was pleased to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen). We hope that private architects and others will have a full opportunity in the urban development corporations to play their part. We believe that the UDCs must attract private as well as public capital.
Of all the speeches on the urban development corporations, the one that moved me most was made by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who, as my right hon. Friend announced, has accepted appointment as deputy chairman of the docklands UDC.
I think the whole House respects the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has served that area in the House for 34 years. He has made speeches in the House saying that he believed that UDCs were the right answer for the Docklands and his constituents. The House can only respect a man who has spoken on that subject against his own Government from the Back Benches in the past, and now, when he has a real opportunity to to continue, in a practical way, to serve his constituents, he is prepared to under-

take this responsibility. We should express our appreciation to all those who have accepted appointments.
I wish to say a word about our repeal of controls. We have said that we want the Bill to extend—

Mr. Alton: Mr. Alton rose—

Mr. Ogden: Mr. Ogden rose—

Mr. King: We have said that we wish to extend the maximum freedom for local government, and while I would accept—

Mr. Ogden: Mr. Ogden rose—

Mr. King: I am sorry, I am not giving way. While I accept that in the controls that we are repealing—

Mr. Ogden: Mr. Ogden rose—

Mr. King: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I am afraid we are up against the clock. I accept that, in our repeal of controls, perhaps the Rag Flock & Other Filling Materials Act 1951 is not exactly the stuff of which our manifesto was made. There are otherwise in these proposals a number of significant relaxations. Nobody can deny that the changes that my right hon. Friend has announced for Parker Morris and the housing cost yardstick is the most significant abolition of detailed control in housing ever seen in this House.
It is galling to have to listen to Opposition Members chipping away at the 300 controls that we are abolishing and saying that this is not very much. It just happens to be 300 more than they have ever done.
One of the most significant aspects of this debate, if we are talking about the chipping away of controls, has been the total absence of grief from any hon. Member about the departure of the Community Land Act. It was perhaps excessive cruelty on the part of my hon. Friends the Members for Melton and for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle), who fairly assassinated the remaining pieces of the Community Land Act—a total disaster in the best tradition of all socialist land planning. Richard Crossman buried the Land Commission. We are now burying the Community Land Act—an Act that gave rise to 200 circulars, guidance and statutory instruments, cost £15 million in administration,


cost £52 million deficit on the local authorities and produced precisely 600 acres of land as a result of its whole activity. It is totally unlamented. We are delighted that the Bill will finally bury it.
We have had to listen during the debate to some pretty righteous speeches from the Opposition Benches, from the great lovers of local government independence and freedom—those who always stood back and never sought to interfere in any decisions of local authorities and those who guaranteed close and detailed knowledge for local government, at the start of the financial year, of their financial situation, burying the fact that as late as August 1976 they issued a circular retrospectively, without any authority from Parliament, clawing back £50 million from local authorities. They represent the party that does not interfere in local government. Yet in the last year of the previous Government 222 circulars were sent from my Department

alone to local authorities telling them what to do.
I am happy to say that we have already reduced that figure to 39. The previous Government unscrupulously manipulated the transport supplementary grant. There was the business of judging between individual authorities. I should like to refer to what the Financial Times said in 1978:
County councils that have refused to back Government policy are punished by cuts in the grants made to them. The worst offenders, Oxford and Northamptonshire, must make do with only £100,000. Dorset regarded as a model county gets its full grant.
How is that for non-interference?
We are determined to get the right balance in local government. We stand for its freedom and independence within the overall ceilings. We believe that the Bill is an important step along that road, and I commend it to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time: —

The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 260.

Division No. 153]
AYES
[10 pm


Adley, Robert
Farr, John
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)


Altken, Jonathan
Fell, Anthony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Alexander, Richard
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Loveridge, John


Alison, Michael
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Luce, Richard


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lyell, Nicholas


Ancram, Michael
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
McCrindle, Robert


Arnold, Tom
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macfarlane, Neil


Aspinwall, Jack
Fookes, Miss Janet
MacGregor, John


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Forman, Nigel
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
McQuarrle, Albert


Bell, Sir Ronald
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Madel, David


Bendall, Vivian
Fry, Peter
Major, John


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Marland, Paul


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marlow, Antony


Best, Keith
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mates, Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Glyn, Dr Alan
Mather, Carol


Blackburn, John
Goodhart, Philip
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Blaker, Peter
Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray


Body, Richard
Gorst, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gow, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond
Mayhew, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Gray, Ham[...]sh
Mellor, David


Bowden, Andrew
Greenway, Harry
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Grieve, Percy
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Brinton, Tim
Grist, Ian
Miscampbell, Norman


Brittan, Leon
Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gummer, John Selwyn
Moate, Roger


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Monro, Hector


Brotherton, Michael
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Montgomery, Fergus


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Moore, John


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hannam, John
Morgan, Geraint


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Haselhurst, Alan
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Buck, Antony
Hawksley, Warren
Mudd, David


Budgen, Nick
Hayhoe, Barney
Murphy, Christopher


Bulmer, Esmond
Heddle, John
Myles, David


Burden, F. A.
Henderson, Barry
Neale, Gerrard


Butcher, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Needham, Richard


Butler, Hon Adam
Hicks, Robert
Nelson, Anthony


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Neubert, Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hill, James
Newton, Tony


Carlisle, Kenneth (Linco[...]n)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Normanton, Tom


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Nott, Rt Hon John


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hooson, Tom
Onslow, Cranley


Channon, Paul
Hordern, Peter
Osborn, John


Chapman, Sydney
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Parris, Matthew


Cockeram, Eric
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Colvin, Michael
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Patten, John (Oxford)


Cope, John
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Cormack, Patrick
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Pawsey, James


Corrie, John
Jessel, Toby
Percival, Sir Ian


Costain, A. P.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Cranborne, Viscount
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Critchley, Julian
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pollock, Alexander


Crouch, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Porter, George


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kershaw, Anthony
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dorrell, Stephen
Kimball, Marcus
Prior, Rt Hon James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Rt Hon Tom
Proctor, K. Harvey


Dover, Denshore
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Knight, Mrs Jill
Raison, Timothy


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Knox, David
Rathbone, Tim


Durant, Tony
Lang, Ian
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rees-Davles, W. R.


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Latham, Michael
Renton, Tim


Eggar, Timothy
Lawrence, Ivan
Rhodes James, Robert


Emery, Peter
Lawson, Nigel
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Eyre, Reginald
Lee, John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ridsdale, Julian


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lester, Jim (Beeslon)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey







Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Steen, Anthony
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Rossi, Hugh
Stevens, Martin
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Rost, Peter
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wall, Patrick


Royle, Sir Anthony
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Waller, Gary


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Stokes, John
Walters, Dennis


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Stradling Thomas, J.
Ward, John


Scott, Nicholas
Tapsell, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Watson, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Tebbit, Norman
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Shepherd, Richard) Aldridge-Br'hills)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Wheeler, John


Shersby, Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Silvester, Fred
Thompson, Donald
Whitney, Raymond


Sims, Roger
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Wickenden, Keith


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thornton, George
Wiggin, Jerry


Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wilkinson, John


Speed, Keith
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Speller, Tony
Trippier, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Spence, John
Trotter, Neville
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Viggers, Peter
Younger, Rt Hon George


Sproat, Iain
Waddington, David



Squire, Robin
Wakeham, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Stainton, Keith
Waldegrave, Hon William
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Stanley, John






NOES


Abse, Leo
Dobson, Frank
Howells, Geraint


Adams, Allan
Dormand, Jack
Huckfield, Les


Allaun, Frank
Douglas, Dick
Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed


Alton, David
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Anderson, Donald
Dubs, Alfred
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Janner, Hon Greville


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dunnett, Jack
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Ashton, Joe
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
John, Brynmor


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Eadie, Alex
Johnson, Walter (Derby South)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Eastham, Ken
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Beith, A. J.
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bidwell, Sydney
English, Michael
Kerr, Russell


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Kinnock, Neil


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Evans, John (Newton)
Lambie, David


Bradley, Tom
Ewing, Harry
Lamborn, Harry


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Field, Frank
Lamond, James


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fitch, Alan
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Flannery, Martin
Leighton, Ronald


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Buchan, Norman
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Litherland, Robert


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Ford, Ben
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Campbell, Ian
Forrester, John
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foster, Derek
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)


Canavan, Dennis
Foulkes, George
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Cant, R. B.
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
McCusker, H.


Carmichael, Neil
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McElhone, Frank


Cartwright, John
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
George, Bruce
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
McKelvey, William


Cohen, Stanley
Ginsburg, David
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Golding, John
Maclennan, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
Gourlay, Harry
McMahon, Andrew


Cook, Robin F.
Graham, Ted
McNally, Thomas


Cowans, Harry
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McNamara, Kevin


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Grant, John (Islington C)
McWilliam, John


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Magee, Bryan


Crowther, J. S.
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Marks, Kenneth


Cryer, Bob
Hardy, Peter
Marshall, David (GI'sgow,Shettles'n)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)


Dalyell, Tam
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)


Davidson, Arthur
Haynes, Frank
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L[...]anelli)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Maxton, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Heffer, Eric S.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Meacher, Michael


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Deakins, Eric
Home Robertson, John
Mikardo, Ian


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Homewood, William
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dempsey, James
Hooley, Frank
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)


Dewar, Donald
Horam, John
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Dixon, Donald
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)







Molyneaux, James
Robertson, George
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Rooker, J. W.
Tilley, John


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Tinn, James


Morton, George
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Torney, Tom


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Ryman, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Newens, Stanley
Sandelson, Neville
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Sever, John
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Ogden, Eric
Sheerman, Barry
Watkins, David


O'Halloran, Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Weetch, Ken


O'Neill, Martin
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)
Wellbeloved, James


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Short, Mrs. Renée
Welsh, Michael


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Palmer, Arthur
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollock)


Park, George
Silverman, Julius
Whitlock, William


Parker, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)
Wigley, Dafydd


Parry, Robert
Snape, Peter
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Pavitt, Laurie
Soley, Clive
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Pendry, Tom
Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Penhaligon, David
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Stallard, A. W.
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Steel, Rt Hon David
Winnick, David


Prescott, John
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)
Woodall, Alec


Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
Stoddart, David
Woolmer, Kenneth


Race, Reg
Stott, Roger
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Strang, Gavin
Young, David (Bolton East)


Richardson, Jo
Straw, Jack



Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)
Mr. Hugh McCartney.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Joseph Dean.]

The House divided:  Ayes 258, Noes. 314.

Division No. 154]
AYES
[10.15 pm


Abse, Leo
Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Forrester, John


Adams, Allen
Crowther, J. S.
Foster, Derek


Allaun, Frank
Cryer, Bob
Foulkes, George


Alton, David
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)


Anderson, Donald
Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dalyell, Tam
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Davidson, Arthur
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
George, Bruce


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Ginsburg, David


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Golding, John


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Deakins, Eric
Gourlay, Harry


Beith, A. J.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dempsey, James
Grant, John (Islington C)


Bidwell. Sydney
Dewar, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dixon, Donald
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dobson, Frank
Hardy, Peter


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Dormand, Jack
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bradley, Tom
Douglas, Dick
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dubs, Alfred
Haynes, Frank


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Dunnett, Jack
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)


Buchan, Norman
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Eadie, Alex
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Ian
Eastham, Ken
Homewood, William


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Hooley, Frank


Canavan, Dennis
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Horam, John


Cant, R. B.
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Carmichael, Neil
English, Michael
Howells, Geraint


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Huckfield, Les


Cartwright, John
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Evans, John (Newton)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Ewing, Harry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)


Cohen, Stanley
Field, Frank
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Coleman, Donald
Fitch, Alan
Janner, Hon Greville


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Flannery, Martin
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Conlan, Bernard
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
John, Brynmor


Cook, Robin F.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnson, Walter (Derby South)


Cowans, Harry
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Ford, Ben
Jones, Barry (East Flint)




Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Molyneaux, James
Silverman, Julius


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenthawe)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Kerr, Russell
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Snape, Peter


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Soley, Clive


Kinnock, Neil
Morton, George
Spearing, Nigel


Lambie, David
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Spriggs, Leslie


Lamborn, Harry
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Stallard, A. W.


Lamond, James
Newens, Stanley
Steel, Rt Hon David


Leadbitter, Ted
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Stoddart, David


Leighton, Ronald
Ogden, Eric
Stott, Roger


Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
O'Halloran, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
O'Neill, Martin
Straw, Jack


Litherland, Robert
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Park, George
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Lyons, Edward (Bradlord West)
Parker, John
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Parry, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


McCartney, Hugh
Pavitt, Laurie
Tilley, John


McCusker, H.
Pendry, Tom
Torney, Tom


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Penhaligon, David
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


McElhone, Frank
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Prescott, John
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


McKelvey, William
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
Watkins, David


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Race, Reg
Weetch, Ken


Maclennan, Robert
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Wellbeloved, James


McMahon, Andrew
Richardson, Jo
Welsh, Michael


McNally, Thomas
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


McNamara, Kevin
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
White, James (Glasgow. Pollock)


McWilliam, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Whitlock, William


Magee, Bryan
Robertson, George
Wigley, Dafydd


Marks, Kenneth
Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shetlles'n)
Rooker, J. W.
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Rose, Wm. (Londonderry)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Ryman, John
Winnick, David


Maxton, John
Sandelson, Neville
Woodall, Alec


Maynard, Miss Joan
Sever, John
Woolmer, Kenneth


Meacher, Michael
Sheerman, Barry
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Mikardo, Ian
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)



Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Short, Mrs. Renée
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Silkln, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Mr. James Tinn and Mr. Ted Graham.


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Silkln, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)



Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Bryan, Sir Paul
Eggar, Timothy


Aitken, Jonathan
Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Emery, Peter


Alexander, Richard
Buck, Antony
Eyre, Reginald


Alison, Michael
Budgen, Nick
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bulmer, Esmond
Fairgrieve, Russell


Ancram, Michael
Burden, F. A.
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Arnold, Tom
Butcher, John
Farr, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Butler, Hon Adam
Fell, Anthony


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Cadbury, Jocelyn
Fermer, Mrs Peggy


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoin)
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)


Bell, Sir Ronald
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bendall, Vivian
Channon, Paul
Fookes, Miss Janet


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Chapman, Sydney
Forman, Nigel


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Best, Keith
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Fox, Marcus


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cockeram, Eric
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Biggs-Davison, John
Colvin, Michael
Fry, Peter


Blackburn, John
Cope, John
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Blaker, Peter
Cormack, Patrick
Gardiner George (Reigate)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Corrie, John
Gardner, Edward (South Fytde)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Costain, A. P.
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Cranborne, Viscount
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bowden, Andrew
Critchley, Julian
Glyn, Dr Alan


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Crouch, David
Goodhart, Philip


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Goodhew, Victor


Bright, Graham
Dickens, Geoffrey
Gorst, John


Brinton, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen
Gow, Ian


Brittan, Leon
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Dover, Denshore
Gray, Hamish


Brooke, Hon Peter
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Greenway, Harry


Brotherton, Michael
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Grieve, Percy


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Durant, Tony
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Grist, Ian







Grylls, Michael
Mather, Carol
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm &amp;Ew'll)
Mawby, Ray
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Shersby, Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Silvester, Fred


Hannam, John
Mayhew, Patrick
Sims, Roger


Haselhurst, Alan
Mellor, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hastings, Stephen
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Speed, Keith


Hawksley, Warren
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Speller, Tony


Hayhoe, Barney
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Spence, John


Heddle, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Henderson, Barry
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Moate, Roger
Sproat, Iain


Hicks, Robert
Monro, Hector
Squire, Robin


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Montgomery, Fergus
Stainton, Keith


Hill, James
Moore, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Morgan, Geraint
Stanley, John


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Steen, Anthony


Hooson, Tom
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Stevens, Martin


Hordern, Peter
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mudd, David
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Murphy, Christopher
Stokes, John


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Neale, Gerrard
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Needham, Richard
Tapsell, Peter


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Neubert, Michael
Tebbit, Norman


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Newton, Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Normanton, Tom
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Jessel, Toby
Nott, Rt Hon John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Onslow, Cranley
Thompson, Donald


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Osborn, John
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Thornton, George


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Kershaw, Anthony
Parris, Matthew
Trippier, David


Kimball, Marcus
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Trotter, Neville


King, Rt Hon Tom
Patten, John (Oxford)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Pattie, Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter


Knight, Mrs Jill
Pawsey, James
Waddington, David


Knox, David
Percival, Sir Ian
Wakeham, John


Lang, Ian
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Waldegrove, Hon William


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pink, R. Bonner
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Latham, Michael
Pollock, Alexander
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Lawrence, Ivan
Porter, George
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Lawson, Nigel
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wall, Patrick


Lee, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Waller, Gary


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Prior, Rt Hon James
Walters, Dennis


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Proctor, K. Harvey
Ward, John


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Warren, Kenneth


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Raison, Timothy
Watson, John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rathbone, Tim
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Loveridge, John
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Luce, Richard
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wheeler, John


Lyell, Nicholas
Renton, Tim
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


McCrindle, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert
Whitney, Raymond


Macfarlane, Neil
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wickenden, Keith


MacGregor, John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Ridsdale, Julian
Wilkinson, John


McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Winterton, Nicholas


McQuarrie, Albert
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wolfson, Mark


Madel, David
Rossi, Hugh
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Major, John
Rost, Peter
Younger, Rt Hon George


Marland, Paul
Royle, Sir Anthony



Marlow, Antony
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Scott, Nicholas
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Mates, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Question accordingly negatived.


Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND LAND (No. 2) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to make further provision with respect to rates and to grants for local authorities and other bodies, to amend the law relating to new towns and to provide for the establishment of corporations to regenerate urban areas ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorize—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums payable out of such money under provisions of the Act authorising the Secretary of State to make rate support grants consisting of a domestic rate relief grant and a block grant and calculated by determining, as provided by the Act, the aggregate amount available for the payment out of money provided by Parliament of the grants to local authorities specified in the Act and making the deductions required by it;
(2) any increase in the sums—

(a) falling to be paid out of or into the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund;
(b) falling to be paid out of money provided by Parliament, being an increase attributable to the provisions of the Act increasing to £4,000 million the limit imposed by section 43 of the New Towns Act 1965 (as amended) on the amounts outstanding in respect of borrowing by the development corporations for the new towns and the Commission for the New Towns;
(3) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums required to enable the Secretary of State to pay to urban development corporations established under the Act ("corporations") sums in respect of the exercise of their functions and their administrative expenses, the payment out of the National Loans Fund of sums required to enable the Secretary of State to make loans to corporations and the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required to fulfil guarantees given by the Treasury in respect of loans to corporations, where the aggregate amount of the following sums does not exceed £400 million—


(a) sums paid by the Secretary of State to all corporations in respect of the exercise of their functions and their administrative expenses,
(b) all sums borrowed by all corporations minus sums repaid in respect of temporary loans, and
(c) sums issued by the Treasury in fulfilment of guarantees of debts of all corporations;

(4) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of sums required to enable the Secretary of State to make loans to the Land

Authority for Wales, where the aggregate amount outstanding by way of the principal of any money borrowed by that Authority does not exceed £20 million, and the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required to fulfil guarantees given by the Treasury in respect of loans to that Authority;
(5) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums payable out of such money under provisions of the Act authorising the Secretary of State—

(a) to make to any authority granting rebates under the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978 in any year a grant equal to 90 per cent. of the aggregate amount of the rebate so granted in that year, excluding any additional amounts granted by virtue of paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to that Act or by virtue of section 4(7) of that Act;
(b) to make to any local authority grants in respect of expenditure which, in his opinion, is expenditure of a capital nature incurred by that authority under section 24 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 in respect of caravan sites provided for the accommodation of gypsies;

(6) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State or a government department which are attributable to the Act;
(7) the payment into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund of any sums falling to be so paid by virtue of the Act and not mentioned above;
(8) any increase in the sums falling to be paid out of money provided by Parliament under any other Act, being an increase which is attributable to the provisions of the Act and which is not mentioned above.—[Mr. Cope.]

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I wish to draw attention to paragraph (3) of the resolution, which refers to
the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums required to enable the Secretary of State to pay to urban development corporations established under the Act ('corporations') sums in respect of the exercise of their functions and their administrative expenses".
This is a curious provision because as yet there is no guidance about how often or how much the so-called urban development corporations will have to call upon the public purse. I am particularly anxious because Newham, South has 2,700 acres which could be passed to the urban development corporation and taken away from the local council. It will be possible for the new corporation compulsorily to purchase any one of those 2,700 acres. The corporation will be able to


transfer any part of that area. The corporation will be allowed virtually to do anything, and under the money resolution it will be able to lend money to anybody to do anything.
Clause 110(3) of the Bill gives authority to
carry on any business or undertaking for the purposes of the object; and
generally do anything necessary or expedient for the purposes of the object or for purposes incidental to those purposes.
Since the object is the regeneration of the area, if the money resolution is passed the House will be signing a blank cheque, or a blank money resolution, for the new body to do anything. Some of my hon. Friends may say that that is all right because the vice-chairman of that body will be my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). But clause 112 makes quite clear that the vice-chairman of the corporation—or, indeed, any member of it—will be very much under the thumb of the Secretary of State, for it gives authority to the Secretary of State to
give directions to such a corporation for restricting the exercise by it of any powers under this Act"—
and I emphasise the next words—
or for requiring it to exercise those powers in any manner specified in those directions.
In other words, in seeking to look after the interests of his constituents, my right hon. Friend may find himself in one capacity immediately under the direction of the Secretary of State. In that circumstance, I am not quite sure for how long my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey would remain my right hon. Friend, because in having to protect the rights of my constituents and half of the area of dockland it might be that my view and that of the Secretary of State would not coincide.
I have a few questions to put to the Minister. What net benefit to the dockland area of London does he expect to accrue in money terms? In other words, how much is he to draw from the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the project? Does the Minister think that there will be a gross charge to the taxpayer? If so, how much will that be, because he will be taking public assets—railway land, gas land and perhaps Port of London Authority land—and turning it over to devel-

opers who will not be under the usual planning constraints.
At the moment, the whole of my constituency is within the planning purview of the London borough of Newham—and very glad it is of that. No less than half of my constituency, if the Bill goes through, will come directly under the urban development corporation, which has planning powers, transport powers and housing powers. The value of the land could well change because of the nature of the planning authority to which it was being transferred. As everybody knows, that is the way in which paper can be changed into gold almost overnight by the granting or withholding of planning permission.
I have two points to make. Conservative Members should listen, because so far their views of London dockland have been entirely misleading. They have been told, in press release after press release, that nothing is going on. They have been told that the area is one of almost complete dereliction.
I shall deal first with the suggestion that there is nothing going on. The official figures of my local borough council—conveyed to the Secretary of State by me and by the council—indicate that there is at least £20 million of investment in public undertakings, particularly drainage. That is a very moderate estimate. There is also £62 million which has either been spent by private industry or will be spent by private investors in the next two or three years. There is another £12 million being invested by housing associations in housing in the Beckton area. That adds up to about £100 million of capital which is already committed and would go ahead in a visible and tangible form. I see that the Secretary of State is nodding his head, because he has been taken round the area—albeit for 20 minutes—and he has been informed by the borough that that is what is happening.
By the terms of the Bill the Government are creating uncertainty in relation to no less than £33 million that is to be spent on private housing. The Secretary of State is very keen on private housing. This housing is to be built in my constituency, yet the Secretary of State claims that nothing is happening in dockland.
The urban development corporation is unnecessary. It is not wanted by some


of the most objective observers. The Newham chamber of commerce stated that it was concerned with the collective welfare and development of the business community. In a letter to the Secretary of State on 9 November, it pointed out that the Secretary of State had said that the urban development corporation would reverse a long-established trend, that it would take time, and that it would be a difficult process. The letter continued:
we suggest to you that here in Newham the trends you want to change—reclaiming land, encouraging private development, improving the environment, creating a demand for housing, encouraging the voluntary sector—are the very things already in active progress through the local Council. So why change?
As a Chamber of Commerce, without political affiliations and concerned only with the collective welfare and development of the business community, we would ask you to reconsider your decision or at least modify it so that the local Authority can continue to operate and direct to a successful conclusion the developments which it has started, has already put into the pipeline or are planned for the future".
Those facts have been supplied by the borough and by the Newham chamber of commerce. They clearly show that the press releases about dereliction and the lack of action in dockland are untrue. Those releases have been mouthed and held up by Conservative Members and until recently, alas, by the Secretary of State. We have told the Minister time and time again. I have noticed a slight change in his attitude and demeanour during the past few weeks. Perhaps that is a good thing. I hope that he will consider the issue more seriously during the Committee stage.
The Beckton district plan is due for approval by the borough council. It plans to develop 8,000 new homes in dockland. I believe that the plan will go to the Secretary of State on 5 March. It will become the statutory development plan for that area unless he decides to call it in. There is no reason to suppose that the Secretary of State will do that. Therefore, this highly imaginative scheme, in which half of the housing will be municipal and half private, will go ahead. It is part of the strategic plan for docklands. It has been approved by the docklands. It has been mittee—the existing municipally based organisation.
Unless the Minister instructs the chairman-designate, vice-chairman-designate,

and members of the urban development corporation to adopt the plan, there will be delays in the regeneration of that important area. The Minister will contribute to that delay, although he claims that he wishes to avoid such delays. If the Minister wishes to see public money well spent, he should ensure that the existing strategic plan goes ahead and that the existing Beckton development plan goes ahead.
The corporation will be looked upon as a Tory agency in an area that has not been of that political colour for a long time. It will succeed only if it shows by its actions that it is willing to cooperate with local councils and is very sensitive to the duties and powers of local council members.
I do not want to ask the Secretary of State questions about the conduct of those members. The provision will put areas that have been the responsibility of local government for over 100 years into the hands of Whitehall. The Bill is therefore a constitutional Bill. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how much money will be authorised. I hope that he will take into account all the criticisms that have been raised. Perhaps he will think twice about the whole procedure of the urban development corporation. It is unnecessary in dockland. I have proved that tonight. No money should be spent on the corporation.

The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): I should like to reply briefly to the points raised by the hon Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). Although we are debating the money resolution, the hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to wander rather more widely over his support for the Beckton district plan. That is his privilege within the rules of the House.
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman referred to the development corporation as Conservative. That is indeed an offensive remark, bearing in mind that his right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who has given far more service to the Labour movement and London's dockland than the hon. Gentleman has yet had the privilege to do, happens to believe that it in the best way to help his constituents. The hon. Gentleman might be surprised to know how much support we have


had from Members in the Labour Party who are prepared to rise above immediate local issues and look to the genuine interests of the area as a whole. They believe passionately that it is the right approach for the area.
The financial provisions that the hon. Gentleman asked about are set out in the financial and explanatory memorandum. He will recognise that they are understandably general and unspecific. When the UDC is approved by Parliament and can start operations, it will put forward specific proposals for what it hopes to do with public money and what it hopes to achieve with private money. Until that time, it is not possible to determine exactly what the balance and effect on public expenditure will be.
I shall not read out the whole of paragraph 21 of the explanatory and financial memorandum, but I direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to it. It sets out quite clearly the financial considerations and the arrangements that will surround the formation of the UDC. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any further information except to tell him that the creation of the UDCs will genuinely mean that greater resources will be available for the docklands area and for Liverpool, Merseyside.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (ENERGY PROGRAMME AND NUCLEAR PROPOSALS)

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Howell): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of EEC document No. 9625/79 on the Energy Programme of the European Community, which describes the Commission's view of the current energy situation in the Community and the longer term outlook, together with EEC Documents No. 8587/79, amending the Council decision of 29th March 1977 on the EURATOM Loans Scheme and No. 5331/79, a proposal on the Plutonium Cycle Research and Development Programme.
I am grateful for the chance tonight to hear the views of the House on these three EEC documents and to outline my impressions of recent developments in the Community and international energy scene, which will be reviewed in depth by the Energy Council of Ministers at its March meeting.
I turn first to the background report on the Community energy programme that was proposed by the Commission for the Energy Council last October. That report describes the Community's energy situation and outlook, in particular developments in the oil supply situation. It goes on to outline the Community's existing energy objectives and the Commission's proposals for new 1990 objectives and, against that background, describes in detail what member States are doing in each of the main energy sectors.
A great deal of the effort described is, of course, going on at national level, where the main thrust of Community energy developments must lie, complemented by Community schemes and programmes where these can make an extra contribution. They do that in energy savings and research into alternative energies and in major projects like the Joint European Torus fusion development—to name three examples of areas where Community collaboration can pay dividends.
This document is a heavy and formidable catalogue of commitments by Governments and industry in member States to tackling the Community's energy problems. In the United Kingdom this Government, together with United Kingdom industry, are shouldering the massive


investments in coal, oil and gas, and nuclear developments which are essential to secure our energy future. We are playing a vital part towards the achievement of the Community's energy objectives as described, and other member States derive benefit from our growing oil production as well as from the important part our coal production plays in reducing the Community's import dependence.
Vital to long-term stability in the world's energy markets is the need to reduce oil and energy consumption. In the United Kingdom we are making a good contribution to this important objective. It would obviously be easy to concentrate on what we have done and on the considerable achievements on the supply side of the picture. But in reality, as I think the House agrees, energy conservation is also a vital part of the response needed from us and from all our partners in the industrialised world.
In the last quarter of 1979, our daily rate of oil consumption was about 5 per cent. below expectation. That was in accordance with the objective for 1979 agreed in the EEC in March. In 1979 as a whole, despite a very severe winter, we pegged oil consumption at around 1978 levels. That was a substantial achievement, and that vital effort by householders, motorists, managers and the Government, in their public sector role, must be sustained in the future.
Let me say finally, in this general background document, that I welcome the emphasis it places on wider international co-operation. The Community's energy problems are, inevitably, only part of a wider picture in which we are determined to play our part constructively.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that background document, can he say now, or can my hon. Friend say in winding up, what the achievement of the United Kingdom has been in relation to paragraph 35 of that document in terms of the overall saving of energy over the last three years?

Mr. Howell: May I leave my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to give the precise figures? I have outlined our approach and contribution, particularly the aspects that have been registered on oil consumption for the past year. I

will ask my hon. Friend to provide the figures for the past three years.
The Community has frequently acknowledged the vital contribution which nuclear power will have to make in meeting our energy needs. Decisions on how much, how fast or what kind are necessarily taken by each Government in the light of their countries' needs and potential and according to their own democratic procedures. That is entirely right. The Community as such cannot hope to have a great influence on this, but in certain areas it can provide useful help by encouraging collaboration and supporting common aims. The two proposals on the nuclear sector which are before us for debate must be considered against that background.
I now come to those two proposals. First, the Euratom loans scheme was launched by the Community in March 1977. It allows the Commission to lend money for the construction of nuclear power stations and fuel cycle installations. The Eupropean Investment Bank acts as the Commission's agent in operating the scheme. The scheme complements in the nuclear sector the wider role of the bank in financing projects in the interests of the Community.
The Commission raises the money on the international market and lends it on to the borrower against first-class guarantees, so there is no element of subsidy in the scheme. It enables an undertaking building a nuclear power station to take advantage of the Community's Triple A credit rating to raise long-term finance on world money markets.
When it was set up, a ceiling of 500 million units of account—about £335 million—was placed on the total volume of loans under the scheme. To put the figure in perspective, a commercial nuclear power station may cost upwards of 1,000 million units of account. The Commission was required to notify the Council when the value of transactions effected reached 300 million units of account, so that the Council could consider a further allocation of funds. This position was reached in the middle of last year. Accordingly, the Commission proposed to the Council that the ceiling be raised to 1,500 million units of account, all other aspects of the scheme being left unchanged.
The scheme has evidently been attractive to borrowers. In addition to the 300 million units of account already lent, applications had been made for a further 845 million units of account. No applications were made in respect of United Kingdom nuclear facilities in time to qualify for the first tranche of loans. However, applications have been made by United Kingdom utilities for money from the second tranche.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I am interested in what I think the right hon. Gentleman is about to say. How far is the Central Electricity Generating Board likely to get help from the Commission under this scheme for the new nuclear construction that is now proposed, and how far will it affect the public sector borrowing requirement?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman is percipient to a degree in that I am about to say something concerning not so much the CEGB as the SSEB and the funds available to it. As these funds are to be raised from outside the United Kingdom, they do not fall upon the Government. To that extent, they ease the burden of our borrowing. As I said, the scheme has been attractive to borrowers and applications have been made by United Kingdom utilities for money from the second tranche. I shall come to the detailed aspects later.
The Commission's proposal was considered in the Council machinery. The United Kingdom Government had formed the view that the scheme was fulfilling a useful role in helping the development of nuclear power and that it clearly met a real demand as evidenced by the number of applications. Of course, we are very conscious of the recommendation made by this House's Select Committee on European legislation on 7 November that the proposal should be considered further by the House. But, on 15 November, agreement was reached by all other member States that the ceiling on the scheme should be raised to 1,000 million units of account. Only the United Kingdom reserve prevented the proposal going forward. It was decided that it would be wrong for us to hold up the extension of this useful scheme further and delay the release of funds to the United Kingdom and other applicants.

Accordingly, on 19 November our reserve was lifted.
Unfortunately, it was not possible to arrange a debate on this document, particularly in the context of a general debate as the Scrutiny Committee had understandably recommended, in the short time available. The formal adoption of the decision by the Council took place on 20 December. The lapse of time between all member States agreeing the proposal and its being adopted was necessary to complete certain formal procedures, including notification of the decision to the Greek Government.
Once the Commission was informed of our agreement to let the proposal go forward on 19 November, the way was clear for it to process applications under the second tranche. Following the intervention by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), I can tell the House that the Commission has now informed me that a decision on the first of these applications, for £100 million by the South of Scotland Electricity Board for the Torness power station, is due to be announced in the next few days.

Mr. Frank Hooley: What is the difference between the interest rate on this form of loan and the interest rate on other sources? How far does this difference represent a subsidy to nuclear power that other forms of power are not enjoying?

Mr. Howell: The interest rate is the Triple A rate that can be raised by the Community in world markets. If there is a differential, it is between raising money at the Triple A rate and raising money at higher interest rates. The European Community has a number of schemes and loan facilities for different projects of different kinds. I do not think that this represents a discrimination between nuclear projects and others so much as a particular scheme that allows Triple A access. There are many projects other than energy projects that allow it as well.

Mr. Nick Budgen: If we borrow money at preferential rates of interest from the European institutions and this goes on for a long time, will they not say to us that we are under some form of moral obligation to accept a European energy policy?

Mr. Howell: The aspects of European energy policy are discussed at different times and arise in different contexts. Our view is that nuclear policy is a sovereign matter for this Government to decide and that this is the end of the issue. These loans are made under the Euratom provisions. It is good business for the loans to be available. Our own nuclear policy is a matter for the House of Commons.
I turn now to the proposed research programme on the plutonium cycle and its safety. Nuclear programmes in the Community are underpinned by a considerable research and development effort. To esure that this effort is deployed effectively, without unnecessary duplication, there is a wide measure of international collaboration. This makes sense. The Community has an important role to play here. It has a joint research centre with a budget of about £70 million, of which the bulk is devoted to nuclear research.
The Community also has a number of indirect action research programmes in the nuclear sector. Under these, Community funds are made available to contractors to support work in certain specified areas. Existing programmes concern uranium prospecting and extraction, safety of light water reactors, decommissioning of reactors, and radiation protection.
A programme on recycling plutonium in thermal reactors was adopted in 1974 and came to an end in 1979. The Commission has now proposed that the programme be broadened to cover the use of plutonium in fast reactors and that it should look more deeply at all aspects of the plutonium cycle. The new programme, if the Commission proposal was adopted, would cost about £13 million over the next five years, about four times as much as the last programme.
The plutonium in nuclear reactors is an important man-made fuel. If recycled in thermal reactors, it can reduce uranium requirements by about 20 per cent. compared with reactors fuelled with uranium alone, but the economic benefits of doing this at present are calculated to be marginal. If it is used to fuel fast reactors, uranium requirements are ultimately reduced to zero. There is a considerable body of expertise in the

Community on the manufacture, transport and use of plutonium-based fuels.
The prototype fast reactor at Dounreay and its counterpart in France use plutonium. Plutonium fuels have also been used on a small scale in thermal reactors in Germany and elsewhere. The purpose of the proposed new Community programme is to develop this expertise so that decisions on the wider use of plutonium fuels can be taken with full information being available.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian): May I put to the Minister a question of which I gave his office warning this morning? It is being said that the British are being difficult about commercial secrecy. May we hear something of the argument that is going on inside the Community and whether the view expressed by our partners has any foundation? Some of us think that it might not have and that the British have a very good case.

Mr. Howell: If by "being difficult" the hon. Gentleman means are we asking whether we would gain by participation in certain aspects, he is perfectly right. We are not so much being difficult as assessing, quite reasonably, whether we wish to join and whether the BNFL, for instance, would gain from being involved in this research. In our view, it is probable that it would not, for the good reason that we have some extremely advanced and commercially advantageous programmes and techniques, such as the gel precipitation in the plutonium fabrication, and so on. These are commercially advantageous and we would lose the commercial advantage involved in participation in that aspect of the programme. I confirm what the hon. Gentleman has heard, but I would put it in a slightly different way.
I emphasise that this programme would in no way pre-empt decisions on nuclear policy, and I hope this makes clear the point I tried to emphasise to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). The responsibility for taking these decisions is and will remain with the national authorities.
Most of the areas covered by the proposed programme are of common interest to a number of member States, and it makes good sense to collaborate in


carrying out research in some of these areas.
I have some reservations on the proposal. I have just indicated as much in my reply to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Daly ell). I believe that it should be somewhat amended before it is adopted. I am particularly anxious about that part of the proposal concerned with new plutonium fuel fabrication methods where commercial considerations may make it difficult for the Community to mount a worthwhile programme, at any rate from our point of view.
I am also hesitant about the emphasis placed on the use of plutonium in thermal reactors. We have no plans in the United Kingdom to use plutonium in thermal reactors, and some other member States are in a similar position. In our view, sufficient research has been done to establish the feasibility of using plutonium in thermal reactors. The principles are understood, so it therefore seems inappropriate to us to spend substantial sums in this area, particularly at a time when pressures on public expenditure are severe.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what is the store of plutonium held in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Howell: I shall have to ask my hon. Friend to wait for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to give him the precise figure.
In conclusion, I would say that, while this proposal is not unacceptable in principle, there are some reservations about its size and detail. It has already been subject to considerable discussion in the Council and I believe that when it finally emerges it will reflect some of the qualifications I have tried to express and be in a more acceptable form.
Those are the three documents that are before us tonight. They give rise to a much wider range of issues on which I and my hon. Friend will be glad to provide the House with answers that are available to us. We are the EEC's leading energy producer and as such we are making a massive contribution to the energy effort of the Community. This debate gives us the opportunity to

reaffirm our intention to continue along this path.

Dr. David Owen: Once again, the House will be concerned that we are debating energy—possibly the most crucial issue which faces the EEC—late at night. We are grateful for a three-hour debate, but the Leader of the House should find at least a day for a major debate on enenrgy.
The Secretary of State should have taken this opportunity, just before another important Energy Council meeting, to take the House into his confidence about some of the major issues that face the Council. There is a widespread feeling that it is now urgent that the European Community and the OECD countries enter into a dialogue with the OPEC countries. We hear reports on whether there is a possibility of an opening of discussion between the European Community and OPEC. There is some speculation in the newspapers. If the Secretary of State wishes to intervene, I should be grateful if he would let the House know what is his thinking on this matter. There are few more important issues.
We debated this matter some months ago. The events in Afghanistan have underlined the importance of the crucial danger that we would face in the industrialised West over the next 10 years if there were any major interruption in oil supplies from any major oil-producing country. The events in Afghanistan have underlined the absolute vital necessity to reduce our dependence on oil imports.
Whatever one's views about the Soviet aggression—whether the Russians went there primarily for defensive reasons fearing that they were going to be thrown out or whether they went there for offensive reasons—there is no doubt that the Russians are now placed geographically in a situation which makes it much easier to interfere with oil supplies from the Gulf.
A dialogue must be opened between the OPEC countries and OECD. It is not enough for the European Community alone to be involved. With Japan taking so much oil from the Gulf States and with the United States being such a crucially important area, the dialogue


should not be entirely confined to the European Community.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an extremely important issue in beginning a dialogue with OPEC is first to appreciate that OPEC is a heterogeneous establishment or institution? Is not one of the immediate and important requirements the need for someone to persuade the OPEC countries to agree upon a coherent economic policy spread right across the whole area?

Dr. Owen: I agree with my hon. Friend. It will be extremely difficult. One of the problems with OPEC is that in recent months it has found it increasingly difficult to get an agreed position on pricing policy. To some extent, that reflects a difference of attitude. One of the powerful pressures on OPEC is the general concern of the Third world, to which it has been much more sensitive in recent years. The possibility of a dialogue in the North-South context, between OECD and OPEC, is perhaps the most important aspect. In that dialogue OPEC would be under some pressure from the OECD countries. I stress that as it puts this debate into context.
We face a serious situation. The Saudi Arabian oil production is held at 9½ million barrels a day. If that were to be cut by a significant amount to 2 million or 3 million barrels a day or less, it would have a very grave impact on the economies of all the Western industrialised countries.
Against that background, reading these Community documents, our response is nowhere near serious enough. The commitment undertaken on the reduction of imports has already been broken by some of the Community countries. The Federal Republic of Germany is above target at the moment. What is being done within the Community to ensure that the member States actually live up to the commitments that they have already undertaken?
Before we are complacent about our own record—and the Secretary of State said that we were well within our target figure—in fairness we have to admit that one of the reasons is that we had substantial room to switch from oil-fired to coal-fired power stations. Our switching

formed the largest section of that reduction. Our record in other areas of conservation is disappointing.
We do not lead the rest of the European Community. We are slow to cut our demand. We do not put anywhere near enough money behind conservation.
This matter was raised in our debate on the gas industry, but there was no reply. I ask the Secretary of State whether the rumours that we hear about a reduction in the conservation effort of the Government are true. I think that many hon. Members would not accept this as an area for reducing public expenditure.
The Secretary of State's Department contributes substantially to the Exchequer and the reduction of the public sector borrowing requirement. It is a Department in which he should be able to argue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that an investment in conservation will pay off in a short time. We are not talking about a 10 or 15 year pay-back.
There is evidence in industry that some of the smaller firms that face high bank rate charges, and all the other financial pressures that they are under, find it difficult to find the money to invest in conservation. They need financial incentives in terms of preferential loans and preferential tax arrangements.
It is not enough to talk about conservation. There is a whole series of actions that the Government must take. So far the record is depressing. One of the first areas is in the home. The insulation grant of £50 is still grossly inadequate, and our building regulations must be tightened up.

Mr. Peter Rost: The right hon. Gentleman's criticism of the conservation programme might make people wonder who had been in charge of the nation's affairs for the previous five years. Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Labour Government were not only slow in starting anything but were lethargic in pushing through any conservation programmes or providing any incentives?

Dr. Owen: That level of debate on an issue such as conservation is unnecessary.
The investment in 1977 in the "Save It" campaign was a substantial pioneering achievement to which tribute was paid


by the European Commission. The introduction of the home insulation grant was an important measure. If the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) is saying that that should have been increased a year or so earlier, I agree that it probably should have been. But at least it was introduced. The Secretary of State announced a minor widening of that scheme as regards local government, which I welcome, but it does not go far enough. I think that it needs more resources.
I am making a plea for the exemption of conservation from the financial restraints to which we understand the Secretary of State has been asked to contribute. He should be able to say to his colleagues that conservation should be exempted. As I have already argued, relying on the price mechanism is totally insufficient.
I turn to the three main documents before us. The terms in which the Secretary of State has explained the procedural issue may well have satisfied some hon. Members, in the sense that he recognised that by not having come to the House for authorisation before he gave it he was technically in breach of the undertaking. He has tried to make amends for that. However, I believe that the Leader of the House should have found an earlier opportunity for this debate.
Most of us would agree—I believe that the Scrutiny Committee agreed at the time—that the regulation was not a substantive one of principle. But it must be accepted that the procedure of coming to the House before Ministers make decisions in the Council of Ministers is something to which all hon. Members attach a great deal of importance. It is the exception when Ministers have to make a decision prior to coming to the House. I am inclined to accept the explanation we have been given on this occasion, but on a major issue of policy it would not be acceptable. This should be something that happens very rarely.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the exceptional procedure has to be undertaken—that is, of course, part of the written undertaking from the Leader of the House—whilst it says that a statement should be made to the House at the

earliest opportunity, there should be an oral statement and not, as in this case, a written statement some time later which can easily go unnoticed?

Dr. Owen: I think that it is far preferable for it to be an oral statement. I agree with my hon. Friend, although I think that there are occasions when it would be done by a written statement. However, when one is in breach of an undertaking to the House it is always preferable to make an oral statement to the House.
On the issues involved, when we analyse what the Secretary of State has said we realise that he has indicated that it is no subsidy. As far as I can understand what he was saying, the terms of the loans are not giving us any preference, apart from the fact—[Interruption.] As I understand it, the interest rate is not necessarily any lower than we could get ourselves. I should be very interested if the right hon. Gentleman could clarify the matter. As I understand it, the net gain to us from taking this loan is minimal. If I am wrong, I should be very grateful to have it quantified.
What is the financial benefit to us of accepting this loan? What percentage of the overall increased tranche is likely to come to the United Kingdom? Will this be going at least some way towards the financial contribution upon which we are trying to improve? Is this something that will be put on the credit side in assessing our financial contribution?
My understanding is that there is very little value to us in getting such loans. I am not saying that we should not do so, because it allows us to free up our capacity for getting loans in other sectors, but I think that the financial advantages are very minimal.
On the question of the plutonium cycle, I had hoped that the Secretary of State would make the attitude of the French Government a little clearer. They have traditionally taken a very sceptical view of the Euratom treaty anyhow, and they have been asking for a substantial amendment to the treaty. In no area is their scepticism greater than where it affects plutonium. As I understand it, they are very anxious that the Euratom treaty should not be used to extend into


areas concerned with plutonium. What the Secretary of State said implied that the cost was very much greater, and he gave his qualifications. But I do not think that any of us were left with a clear impression as to whether the British Government would agree to this proposal in its present form, and, if not, what they intend to do about it. Is this likely to be put to the vote in the imminent Energy Council? What is the French Government's attitude? We would like to know a good deal more about this, and perhaps a little more about the fundamental criticism that is raised, if I am right, by the French Government.
However, the substantive matter which I wish to address tonight is the issues concerned in the overall look at energy policy. In particular, I draw the attention of the House to paragraph 70 on page 20 of document No. 9625.
For a variety of reasons, not least because it has been extremely difficult to separate the issue of coking coal from the dispute which is involving the British Steel Corporation, we have not had the opportunity to focus on the specific issue of coking coal. I do not know whether every hon. Member is aware of the significance of this issue.
First, I should like to hear the final date by which the BSC has to make up its mind whether to import any further coking coal. Previously we have been given a pledge that the BSC would not import any further coking coal before the end of January. We are now into February. Has there been a further extension of the time limit? That is an important question. The British Steel Corporation went ahead with its decision to import, with almost no consultation with the National Coal Board. The NCB had invested £50 million in improving the washing and overall coking coal facilities and it was suddenly faced with a fait accompli—a substantial import of coking coal.
The history does not need to be described in detail. We have heard arguments about the quality of coking coal and about the price. It is clear that the level of imports of coking coal that have already been contracted are such that the quality and safety arguments are fully met. There is no doubt about that. In Redcar there has been understandable

anxiety about the quality and safety arguments and about the Japanese consultants. The level of imports to Redcar is already enough to meet all requirements. We are dealing with the issue of price alone.

Mr. Budgen: May we hear the official Opposition's attitude towards a European energy policy? Is it proposed that the next Labour Government—if such a thing emerges—will cede sovereignty over our natural sources of energy to any of the European institutions?

Dr. Owen: When we have a full day's debate we can debate energy policy. The last Labour Government were extremely zealous in protecting British interests on the United Kingdom continental shelf. We made it clear that in the areas of oil, coal and overall energy policy we were not prepared to cede sovereignty. That does not mean that there is not a case for a Community energy policy, particularly in a crisis. It is important that we agree that if the Community and the rest of the world are plunged into an acute oil crisis there should be sharing arrangements.
I have argued for a tough depletion policy. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us what that will be. If we adopt a tough depletion policy under which we shall not export more oil than is necessary to achieve net self-sufficiency and we are faced with a severe cut in oil supplies, it will be in our interests to increase our production. As a manufacturing nation, we would suffer deeply from an economic recession affecting not only our Community partners but all the industrialised West. We cannot adopt an energy policy which is totally selfish and which fails to take account of the Community States. Equally, we should not forgo the right to make our own decisions, particularly on the continental shelf.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government have scheduled Mexborough as a development area? They now propose to close the coking plant at Wath-upon-Dearne, which means that 580 jobs will be lost. What do the Government mean by talking about importing coking coal? They have made false promises about bringing new jobs to the Mexborough area.

Dr. Owen: My hon. Friend knows the history well. I was about to refer to the


shadow that has been cast over the industry by the coking coal issue. The industry has experienced difficult years under successive Governments.
Substantial investment has gone into the industry from 1974 onwards, and it has begun to pay off. Over the past year the coal industry's record is striking. Production is rising, and at an accelerating rate. The indicator of absence, which includes absenteeism, but also non-appearance at work, is substantially down. The third aspect is recruitment. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may scoff, but the industry had serious problems of production, absenteeism and recruitment. To have reversed all three is an achievement that we should all be pleased about. Snivelling comments about it will get us nowhere.
The coal industry is one on which the country will rely over the next few decades more than on almost any other. It is in this context that we come to coking coal and why we are so concerned about it. There are many jobs at risk. We are talking about redundancies. Some people have spoken about as many as 10,000. We are talking in terms of substantial pit closures. All this is because of a short-term decision to import coking coal, on the basis of a narrow financial advantage that may not last for more than a year. This is against every policy that is being pursued by every other industrialised country in the world—not only our Community partners, but certainly including them.
I draw attention to paragraph 70 on page 20 of the document. It is clear from that paragraph that the Community is prepared to introduce new schemes for coking coal to encourage its production in the member States. There are already substantial national subsidies. The Federal Republic of Germany subsidises its coking coal industry to a substantial extent, as, indeed, it subsidises its whole coal industry. It does so for overall strategic energy reasons, and for good reasons. If the Federal Republic, which is a greater believer in market forces than any other member State, can see the sense in keeping a viable coking coal industry and not relying on imports, I find it incredible that this country should be allowing the BSC to import coking coal.
I understand that the BSC's present financial problem makes it extremely difficult for the corporation to give up any potential savings. I have constantly reiterated that we must not have a dispute between the BSC and the National Coal Board or between steel worker and mine worker. There is a national interest here. It is not good enough for the Secretary of State and the Government generally to hide behind various statements and gradually to be seen to be shifting their position.
The latest statement is that made on 4 February by the Secretary of State for Wales, who said:
The NCB has asked for an additional £18 million towards the agreed cost of £33 million, but, since the subsidies and cash limits were agreed, the price of oil has risen sharply raising the Coal Board's headroom and the Government can see no reason why, on the scale of a total turnover of around £3,000 million, the NCB should not be able to find the necessary funds."—[Official Report, 4 February 1980; Vol. 978, c. 39.]
If that is, in plain English, permission for the NCB to subsidise the coking coal and to make up the cost to the BSC, I hope that the Under-Secretary will say so when he replies to the debate.
If we can end the uncertainty here and now for the coming year, we can settle a longer-term policy for coking coal and lift the shadow over the industry. It is a shadow that is cast over large areas of the coal mining industry. It is felt most bitterly over South Wales in particular, because of the effects on the BSC. In the North-East it is also very worrying. At least there is the possibility of selling most of its coking coal to the Central Electricity Generating Board and putting it into power stations. But that is expensive—and temporary. It will also affect Scotland, Stafford and Kent. What is needed for from the Government is an end to the uncertainty on the issue.

Mr. David Howell: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will certainly clarify the matter, which is as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has already described it. May I clear up one misapprehension that I believe continues in the right hon. Gentleman's mind? The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that there are still funds available on application from the EEC or the ECSC to help the coking coal industry. In fact, the only funds available are to


subsidise intra-Community trade in coking coal, and this country does not, save to a minute degree, indulge in such trade. So there are no such additional funds available.
What is available, and what the Federal Republic of Germany is using, are permissions from the EEC for the country concerned to use its own funds to subsidise as it wishes. That is a matter of legitimate debate. But the implication that there is some additional EEC honey-pot from which we could draw but are not drawing is not accurate.

Dr. Owen: If the right hon. Gentleman studies in Hansard what I have said, he will see that I said that I believed that the money is available within the Community. In my judgment, what is needed is a proposition from the British Government. We hear from the Prime Minister that she wishes to improve the contributions coming to the United Kingdom from Community resources in order to put us into broad balance. What is being asked in Brussels is what specifically the British Government want. Here is an area where, I believe, a proposal from the British Government would be met with a favourable response.
I agree, of course, that at present, as is said in paragraph 70 of the Commission's report,
The only support scheme in operation at Community level is for Community production of coking coal";
and it goes on to say that a proposal has already been made for a new scheme. But that is a limited proposal, and I believe that a more ambitious proposal from the British Government for a subsidy from Community funds would find a receptive response.
At any rate, let the right hon. Gentleman remember that if he does not try he will not find out, and this industry has had to hang about for three months for a reply. I do not mind if it comes from national funds. I do not mind either, if the National Coal Board, in the light of what the Secretary of State for Wales said, is told that the Government now expect it to make up the difference for the BSC. That is all that has been requested, and that is the issue which I want to see settled in this debate. We shall come back to it time and again.
First, we want an assurance that no more coking coal will be imported for the British Steel Corporation. We want to know that there is no question of the corporation going off and making a contract in the next few days. Apart from anything else, coking coal contracts last for from three to five years and are denominated in dollars. One only needs the pound to go down against the dollar and the whole equation is changed. Shipping rates are temporarily low and will rise. Some of the countries from which we are importing, such as Australia and the United States, will almost certainly put up their price. Moreover, if they run into an acute energy shortage, we can say "Goodbye" to there being any increase in coking coal on the market.
Moreover, coking coal is cheap at the moment because steel demand is low. If steel picks up and the world recession moves away, coking coal prices will pick up.

Mr. Skeet: The right hon. Gentleman has not stated the position correctly. Australia has millions of tonnes of coking coal. In fact, the National Coal Board has an interest in German Creek in Queensland, and I dare say that when that becomes productive the NCB will be exporting coking coal back to the United Kingdom—and most of it is opencast.

Dr. Owen: There are two grounds of difference there. First, on financial grounds, there is the question of a tax being put on by the Australian Government. That is being talked about at the moment. Second, the Australians will charge the international price, and if the international price goes up the Australian price will go up. We shall find that we have clamped down and cut off our coking coal supply in this country for two or three years and then, when we ask for our production to be expanded, we shall find pits closed and the capacity lost.
But there is an overall argument, which is that at a time when we are asking for self-sufficiency in energy and we are trying to ensure that there is less importation of energy—oil is the classic example, but the same is true of coal—it makes nonsense for us to run down the resources of coking coal which we have available.
What we are asking for is a decision not to import any more coking coal and not to make any more contracts, and a decision to authorise the BSC to go ahead and rely on National Coal Board coal and for the National Coal Board to make up the difference, so that the BSC will not have to find the money from its own resources. We ask that it effectively makes the decision which, in my view, is implicit in what the Secretary of State for Wales said. If that is not forthcoming, we shall return again and again to this subject. We are not prepared to see the coking coal industry, as part of the overall coal mining industry, run down in the way that is suggested. It would have savage social consequences. It is economic madness and it runs totally against the energy policy contained within the documents we are debating tonight.
I know that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will wish to raise other issues. I have concentrated on the issue of coking coal because of the severe consequences for many parts of the country of a rundown in this part of the industry. It is also the most graphic example of how our energy policy is heading in the wrong direction. I call on the Secretary of State to change that policy, and to do so quickly.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dr. Owen) dealt with coking coal. I shall not pursue what he said on that point, other than to say that the British Steel Corporation would be prepared to take what coking coal the National Coal Board has, provided that it is of the right specification. It would be prepared to take the coking coal, not merely for Red-car but for other modern blast furnaces, on such a condition, provided that it was at a relatively advantageous price. The differential between the price of imported coking coal, which comes largely from opencast mining, and that produced in the United Kingdom is considerable.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the lack of advantage of loans from the European Investment Bank. He must recognise that interest rates in Europe are much lower than they are in the United Kingdom. A study of the figures relating to nuclear power station development between 1973 and1978 shows that we have

received 203 mua as compared with a figure of 268 mua for France. In 1979 we received a further 156 mua, and we have been told by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that Torness is to receive a further loan this year of 100 million—I do not know whether that is in units of account or £ sterling. That is a considerable advantage which we have derived from Europe and, possibly, in totality, it will exceed all loans to France.
We are supposed to be dealing with nuclear power. My right hon. Friend spoke a little time ago about the United Kingdom programme. It is to be 15 gigawatts over a 10-year period beginning in 1982. I am of the view that this programme probably will not get off the ground at the right time. We may be in a serious situation. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has given me some figures for the United Kingdom showing what the position was in gigawatts at the end of 1977. At that time the United Kingdom figure was 5·9. At the end of 1985 it is to go up to 9·4, which is 11 per cent. of total electricity generating capacity. By the end of 1990 it is estimated that the figure will go up only to 12·3. That is only a minor improvement over the period.
Let us compare the position with France. There, the figures for the same periods are 4·6 and 38·5, going up to a total of 58. These are very large figures in gigawatts. This is an important matter for the United Kingdom since it means that energy costs in France will be low but in the United Kingdom relatively high, making France much more competitive than ourselves. Similar figures apply to Western Germany.
We have had no indication whether any coal-fired power stations will be built—apart from Drax. Nor have we been told to what extent Selby and the Vale of Belvoir will affect the outcome. Nor have we been told when fluidised-bed combustion for power stations will enter the commercial phase. It would be a great help to us if we could be told whether, in the ordering programme, there are to be any further coal-fired power stations. Apart from the completion of Dungeness B, Hartlepool and Heysham A in 1982, Heysham B in 1987 and Torness in 1988, there are not likely to be any further nuclear power stations commissioned in the 1980s. Ordering a PWR in 1982,


and allowing a six-year period for construction, will probably mean commissioning in 1989–1990.
Commissioning in the 1990s will be affected by at least three factors. The first is the uncertainty of the development of electricity demand, which is itself dependent upon a correct interpretation of the United Kingdom's economic growth. Second, there is the long lead time required for the construction of power stations, and particularly the performance of the construction industry undertaking large-scale projects. Third, there are the doubts about the capacity and performance of the nuclear engineering industry, which has had no nuclear station ordered since 1970. Further, commissioning in the 1990s will be undertaken at a time when Magnox stations will be ready for de-commissioning.
I say all these things because it is important to note that the Europeans in two nations, France and Western Germany, are going ahead of the United Kingdom. What will be the reality here? When are we to move ahead in the United Kingdom? We are told that we have this 10-year programme, but to what extent is it a programme and to what extent will it be implemented?
A number of hurdles in the way of early implementation have to be overcome. First, we have to get a letter of intent, which I dare say will be secured without any great difficulty from Westinghouse. As has been indicated by the Secretary of State, a Westinghouse and not a Babcock licence will be accepted. Following that, we have to get a nuclear site licence. The Nuclear Installations Act 1965 will apply, but a safety case submission will have to be made by the NNC, in conjunction with the CEGB, to the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, and the inspectorate will have to be satisfied.
Any result on that will be delayed by the Government's difficulty in recruiting engineers for that body. The inspectorate enters 1980 12 per cent. below strength in inspection staff, with the prospect of an increase in its heavy work load associated with the planning of the 1,100-MW demonstration PWR. It may take time, therefore, to overcome the first hurdle. At the same time, we are crying out in the United Kingdom for the discharge of the programme.
The next hurdle is the statutory consent, or the site consent, under section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act 1909, but where is the site in the United Kingdom to be? Is it to be Sizewell? Is it to be in Scotland? Is it to be in Wales, or elsewhere? The body of protestation is extremely loud these days and there may be opposition in any of those places.

Mr. John Hannam: Bedford.

Mr. Skeet: If it comes to Bedford, we shall consider it in the national interest. If I could make a personal recommendation, I would put it down just by Exeter—the best spot in the land.
The next hurdle is probably the most dangerous of the lot—the deemed planning permission under section 40 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.
The Secretary of State has to provide a plan for our acceptance. We hope that his plan will be realised. We have not the foggiest idea whether it will materialise at the time when it is required. If we do not have the increased capacity available for the United Kingdom, the standards of the people will fall relatively to those in Western Europe.
Are we to have a Windscale-type inquiry—we are quite familiar with that—or is it to be of the sort that is currently taking place in the Vale of Belvoir, which will last for approximately a year, after which it will have to be considered by the Minister, who will prescribe on that? Or will he be wise enough, under section 47 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, to have a planning inquiry commission during which all relevant matters may be considered? My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman), who is very concerned in nuclear matters, will then be able to put forward certain ideas on whether we should have a nuclear programme.
Another hurdle amidst the long saga of difficulties is that of capital investment approval under section 8 of the Electricity Act 1957. That is not the end of it. Radioactive effluents must be covered. Under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, authorisation must be obtained from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and from the Secretary of State for the Environment for the discharge of radioactive effluents. There is, therefore, a large amount of bureaucracy. It is


perhaps essential to have some such provision because of the public's sensitivity. However, could not several of the procedures be telescoped?

Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Member listed a number of hurdles over which planning procedures must pass before a nuclear power station can be built. However, I believe that I am the only Member of Parliament to represent a constituency that has a nuclear power station under construction. Even if the Secretary of State is satisfied with the plans, it may be that the majority of people in that locality are not satisfied. We must therefore persuade people that a nuclear power station is desirable and safe.

Mr. Skeet: I recognise the sensitivity of that point. I also agree with the hon. Member about obtaining a consensus. However, that can surely be accomplished by a wide-ranging public inquiry. At a public inquiry all the arguments can be put forward and they will be considered in extenso. The matter will then revert to the Minister and he may reconsider the issue.
When the Labour Party was in power, we dealt with the Windscale inquiry. The issue was not only thrashed out before the inquiry, but there was a debate in the House. I believe that the then Secretary of State for the Environment did a good job of informing the public about the reality of the situation. The chances of dying from radioactivity are minute. It is much more dangerous to walk across the road or to travel by train. Travelling by air is yet more dangerous. The most dangerous job at sea is that of working on a trawler in the North Sea. The most dangerous job on land is that of working in a mine or quarry in the United Kingdom.
Many people's fears are totally unfounded. They are whipped up by such groups as Half Life and Friends of the Earth, who appear to have a vested interest in causing difficulties. We are trying to pave the way to a high standard of living by having relatively cheap energy costs, compared with Western Europe and elsewhere. Unless we go ahead with plans for a coal and nuclear future, we shall be in dire difficulties. If we postpone the evil day it will be too

late, because of the long lead time involved in building nuclear stations.

Mr. Budgen: Surely my hon. Friend is not saying that groups such as Friends of the Earth have no right to express their objections. That group has a valid point of view that should be considered.

Mr. Skeet: My hon. Friend has probably misunderstood me. Of course it has a right to express its views, just as I have a right to express my views in the Chamber. I debated with Friends of the Earth in the Cambridge Union and I beat them. However, we should not play with the lives of people by rendering the future of nuclear power more difficult. We should strive to sustain the high standards that we enjoy. Nuclear hazards are limited because the industry takes great care to ensure that no great danger is involved.
There were three other difficulties in the way of building nuclear power stations. There are not merely procedural problems. Before the Secretary of State can decide on any arrangement, he must be satisfied about the level of demand in the United Kingdom and about the performance capacity of the British nuclear industry, which has had no new nuclear order since 1970. It is a rundown industry and will have to be built up. It has little experience in building a PWR, and I strongly recommend PWRs in the United Kingdom.
The third point concerns project management responsibility. Anyone who has visited the Isle of Grain or the suspension bridge that is being constructed near Hull must conclude that those projects were apparently never intended to be completed. The cost to the public is rising annually. The amount of money wasted on these projects is scandalous. Unless management or the unions can secure some control of large nuclear power station developments, there will be difficulty in fulfilling our programme.
The Secretary of State mentioned the 10-year programme for 15 gigawatts, starting in 1982. I believe that it is much more likely to begin as late at 1984 or 1985. Bearing in mind the long lead time. I do not believe that any of these stations will be commissioned until well into the 1990s. Another difficulty is that we cannot supply the coal that is in the ground. We could have a shortage of coal, which would make life difficult for


members of the public, who are represented on both sides of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Before I call the next hon. Member, let me say that less than two hours of the debate remains and 11 or 12 hon. Members wish to speak. Any hon. Member who speaks for longer than 10minutes will prevent another from speaking.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I should like to follow the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) in referring to the nuclear aspects of the documents.
First, may I put four propositions about the country's ultimate future with regard to energy? There will be increased total demand for energy, particularly in view of greater industrial production and a rising standard of living once this Government are out of the way and an improved Government take their place. The relationship between energy use and gross national product is close, though not exact. If we are not to scramble madly among ourselves for a share of the national cake, that cake must grow in size.
Secondly, increased demand for energy will be less than it might have been because of higher efficiency in the production and use of energy as costs rise. There will be less waste and more conservation.
Thirdly, primary energy sources that are as yet little developed—sea tides, sea waves, sun and wind—will contribute much more than in the past. However, they will not be sufficient to fill the gap caused by the ultimate decline in the output of fossil fuel sources—coal, oil and gas—due to physical exhaustion of supplies and increased expense of extraction. I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends who say that in the next 10 years or so there will be considerable demand for and, I hope, availability of coal. However, I believe that in the longer term there will be increasing difficulty in finding people prepared to risk life, limb and future health in what is still the highly dangerous trade of coal-getting.
Fourthly, with present levels of scientific knowledge—and we cannot say what

the future will bring—more energy from nuclear fission processes, mainly in the form of electricity, will be needed to meet demand because there are no other sources from which it can with certainty come. Hence the British contribution to the overall European nuclear development need is important. The Secretary of State announced before Christmas a new nuclear programme. It was astonishing because some 15,000 MW was promised over 10 years.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bedford because I believe that between that aspiration and its fulfilment a great gap is fixed. As the Secretary of State knows, I questioned him very closely on these matters in 'the public hearing of the Select Committee on energy last week. The hon. Member for Bedford was in the audience. He seems to have learnt his lesson very well, because he listened to what I said and he has improved on what I said. I congratulate him; his Government would do well to listen to his cogent remarks.
I do not know whether the Government appreciate the width of the difference between what they have on paper and what they are likely to get in practice. There is, first, the question of choice of reactor. We are committed now to a trial PWR. The last Labour Government agreed to these design studies, but it is not yet clear whether the AGR will finally be abandoned. The issue is extremely cloudy. Secondly, as the hon. Member for Bedford has said, the nuclear reactor industry has been running down for many years and it is hard to see how a programme for the building of one 1,500-MW nuclear station per year from 1982 can be fulfilled quickly given that fact.
Sir Francis Tombs, the chairman of the Electricity Council and formerly chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board, who has a lot of experience in these matters, said last September, I think, that such a crash programme would not be possible. It will be useful for the Secretary of State for Energy to check the view of Sir Francis Tombs against that of Mr. Glyn England, the chairman of the CEGB.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: Would my hon. Friend agree that the feasibility study did


no more than generally argue that safety could not in itself be the sole reason for not having a PWR? However, that circumstance does not validate it and this is still an issue that the Government must get clear before we can go forward with PWRs.

Mr. Palmer: My hon. Friend has great knowledge in these matters, and, as he says, it is a question of clearing the PWR through all the difficult British nuclear planning processes and of clearing it also through the British nuclear inspectorate. There may be all the difference in the world between a PWR built rather carelessly, as I think has been done in the United States, and a PWR built to stringent British safety standards. I am sorry to have to raise these doubts, but it is important that we should not live in cloud-cuckoo-land and that we should keep our feet firmly on the earth.
We still have not done very much to bring our total electrical nuclear manufacturing capacity in this country into a unified whole. Some valuable changes were made a number of years ago, but the rivalries between the independent firms still within the British nuclear construction concentration—part private and part State-owned—continue. One considerable section of manufacturing interest in his country is still openly opposed to the PWR because its resources financially, technically and so on are committed to the AGR. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman should look at these matters realistically and try to get at the truth on timetables, if he can, from those who advise him, and certainly not put on paper plans that are not likely to be fulfilled. I say that as one who is very friendly to the idea of further nuclear construction and regards it as essential.
I should like to make two final points which were not mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. The first concerns the future of the fast breeder reactor, particularly the commercial fast breeder reactor. About three years ago the Atomic Energy Authority told some of us that a decision on a commercial fast breeder reactor was needed urgently. Some of us went to Dounreay and listened to Sir John Hill when he gave evidence to the then Select Committee on science and technology. He said that it was essential that there should be a

decision by the autumn of that year. That was several years ago. Since then everything has gone quiet. I should like to know whether we are to have a joint fast breeder reactor programme with the French. Or is that something that is talked about that again has no reality?

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Is my hon. Friend able to tell us about other countries which are developing prototype fast breeder reactors? Has he any observations to make on the safety of the running of the prototypes to date?

Mr. Palmer: So far the running of the prototypes has been very safe, but everyone is cautious about a commercial fast breeder because, if it is to be a truly commercial reactor, it will have to be placed not far away in the North of Scotland but nearer population centres. It is assumed that the risks are greater than with conventional thermal reactors, rightly or wrongly. But other countries, including the Soviet Union and the United States of America, are working on these fast reactors because of the need for economy in the use of uranium.
Finally, will anything be done about further interconnection between the British and Continental grids? I know that the CEGB has plans and is carrying out certain work in the English Channel, but it would be interesting to know once again the reality and the facts and figures of the related energy economy through interconnection.

Mr. Nigel Forman: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), the former Chairman of the Select Committee on science and technology, with whom I served for some time on that Committee. I am sure that the whole House will wish to pay tribute to his great personal knowledge and experience of energy policy.
I do not propose to pursue the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I want to astound the House by concentrating on one of the documents that we are supposed to be discussing, namely, COM(79) 527 final, which is the appellation of the document headed:
The energy programme of the European Communities.


The House should bear in mind that the background against which we are discussing these documents and considering what the Commission has to say is bleak. There are the international recession and the prospect of British GDP declining by 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. over the coming year. Oil prices are rising fast in real terms with Saudi Arabian market crude now up to about 26 dollars a barrel and Nigerian and Libyan crude even further up at about 34 dollars a barrel. There is the extreme vulnerability of all the OECD countries to sudden interruptions of oil supply and the real danger, as the right hon. Gentleman said, of another Iranian crisis elsewhere in the Middle East. If it were to strike in Saudi Arabia, I do not know what the advanced Western world would do in the short term.
Document No. 9625 makes the important point of the economic burden of an adequate energy insurance policy. I use the phrase "energy insurance policy" because it is contained in one of the paragraphs of the document.
The progress that the Community has made so far in attaining its energy objectives has not been good. Nothing like enough has yet been achieved on energy conservation. There is a need for much better progress in reducing the dependence on imported oil. There has been some progress but nothing like enough to ensure a margin for safety.
I am sure Opposition Members will agree that it is disappointing that coal production and consumption have declined since 1973. Forecasts for natural gas are probably too sanguine, especially the expectation of vastly increased imports in paragraph 20 of the document. I am not sure where these imports are expected to come from. A quadrupling of imports by 1990 presumably refers to Algeria and Norway. I should like to know the evidence on which that is based.
There is growing realism about the contribution of nuclear power from 1990 onwards. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) was right to warn the House of the real danger that the out-turn on nuclear building and nuclear stations coming on line will be a great deal more modest and slow than the paper plans.
The most vital points in the document are those made in paragraphs 21 and 22. A salient sentence in paragraph 21 states:
The evolution of demand can either exacerbate or moderate these supply problems and depends on future economic growth and on the effectiveness of our efforts to use energy more effectively.
In other words, the document brings out the shortcomings of previous energy policy in the unwillingness to act sufficiently on energy demand as well as on the supply side. What has to be recognised over the coming years is the inevitability of the energy sector as a whole preempting to a massive extent resources that were previously available to other sectors of the economy.
The objectives for Community energy policy are set out in paragraph 26. I agree with objective (i), but I believe that the Community could go much further, especially if some of its economic growth can be wisely invested in the more efficient conversion and use of energy. I agree with objectives (ii) and (iii), but these imply a vigorous policy of fuel substitution and conservation.
I agree with objective (v), although it contains an element of internal inconsistency. There is an inherent tension when the same paragraph talks of increasing coal imports and restoring Community coal production. It is important that coal should be used as efficiently and effectively as possible. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will say something positive about the Government's attitude to CHP and the wider use of fluidised beds, especially the direct use of coal in British industry.
I agree strongly with objective (vii) in paragraph 26. There is no doubt that what are called
economic and transparent energy pricing policies
are a major factor in conservation and the efficient allocation of resources. To this extent, I cite the Government's recent brave decision on gas prices as a step in the right direction and as being consistent with that objective.
I am a bit dubious about objective (iv) because of the nuclear costs and delays, the great problem of reaching the indigenous coal production targets and my personal doubts about excessive reliance upon electricity in the future, whatever that electricity will be fuelled by.
Equally, I am doubtful about objective (vi) because of the strengthening argument in favour of a cautious depletion policy for both oil and gas. Once again, I am in agreement with the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) on this. I hope that we shall get a positive statement on the Government's depletion policy, not necessarily in this debate but soon. If we wish to emulate partner countries, we would do better to emulate the Norwegians than the Dutch.
The top priority that comes out of the document is the priority which must be given throughout the Community to energy conservation. I commend paragraphs 34, 35 and 36 to the Government. They repay a great deal of study, and I hope that they will be implemented.
I also hope that the Government will use all the weapons at their disposal in energy conservation. I include price, exhortation, regulation, incentives and taxation. We cannot reply, as hitherto, solely on exhortation and price. We need to be more ambitious with the other mechanisms. All sensible studies show that conservation is the best, the quickest, the safest and the most employment-creating investment on an opportunity cost basis that can possibly be made in the energy sector. If I may be a little critical, I wish that the Government would show more signs of realising that, not just in their policy pronouncements but in the action they take.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the Government might adjust the rate of value added tax for the improvement of property, which in many cases involves insulation, which cuts energy costs?

Mr Forman: My hon. Friend is on to a good point. He has also pinpointed a dilemma, which is that the Department of Energy is the lead Department in energy conservation. Energy conservation entails a great deal of co-ordination throughout Whitehall if it is to work. I hope that the Government will say something positive tonight and do something positive in future about energy conservation.

Mr Peter Hardy: The House will have found the speech of the hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman)

very interesting. He is right to offer a note of criticism of the Government. I, too, shall be offering one or two criticisms of the Government.
The documents show that large sums of money are being made available for nuclear research. I do not object to nuclear research, but, given the note of realism that has dawned on the Community, it would be better for some of that money to be switched to augment the me agre funds which are devoted to the support of coal and research into coal technology.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) was right to talk about the depletion policy. In document 9625/79 we are told that oil supplies to the Community were 6 per cent. higher in the first half of 1979 than they were in 1978. That is a very serious matter. If that trend is continued, the British commitment to be a net exporter of oil throughout the 1980s is very dangerous. I hope at the next Energy Ministers' meeting the Secretary of State will ensure that Europe is made aware that we as a net oil exporter—I think foolishly a net exporter—will expect EEC countries to abide by the commitments they have made. If they do not, we should rapidly examine our commitment to export oil and drastically change the depletion policy.
Coal, as the documents say, is the most abundant energy resource in the Community. Coal production in the 1960s fell by deliberate design. People have realised since then that that was a mistake. Unfortunately, despite all the protestations and comments, some of which we read in these documents, coal production is continuing to decline in the Community. Having recognised the need and realised that coal is necessary, the Community should take very much more positive action to safeguard the industries, particularly on the mainland.
The Belgian and French fields are contracting. Two of the four areas of the National Coal Board in Yorkshire will be producing far more coal than is produced in the whole of France. Their position is deteriorating. The production in West Germany may remain substantial, but it is bolstered by very heavy national subsidies and by its reliance upon the Community's reported trade within the rest of the Community. The West


German industry is not economic. It is scarcely viable. It cannot be regarded, under any criteria, as comparing with the National Coal Board. Yet, because of the Community's support, it is able to compete with the National Coal Board, which is an infinitely more successful and productive industry.
However, grievous problems have developed for the National Coal Board. It should be poised and buoyant. Since 1974 it has had confidence injected into it. Massive investment has taken place. It can properly be regarded as potentially the most successfull deep-mine industry in the world. Yet we are now facing enormous difficulties.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport referred to some of the areas in Britain which were placed in difficulties as a result of coking coal imports. However, he did not mention South Yorkshire. I shall talk about the effect in my own constituency. So far, little attention has been given to that effect—not even by our local media. I have been surprised that the media in South Yorkshire have not properly understood the difficulties which the National Coal Board now faces in our area. The Under-Secretary of State understands it. I welcome the visits that he made. However, we shall require explanation and understanding over the next few months so that we may maintain the tremendous progress that was being achieved.
I want to talk about the pits in the Rother Valley. They produce coking coal. They have made the National Coal Board South Yorkshire area a successful and profitable area. That success is now in serious jeopardy. Cortonwood colliery produces the best coking coal in South Yorkshire. It may not be able to find a market for it other than generation. At the moment, National Smokeless Fuel is taking coking coal from Cortonwood on a temporary basis.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) will forgive me for referring to Manton colliery. That was one of the most successful collieries in Britain. It supplied the BSC at Corby. That market has gone. Good-quality coking coal from Manton, at the southern end of the Yorkshire coalfield, is now being used for generation. That

is an absolute waste which should cause the Department of Energy a great deal of distress.
Nearby in my constituency Treeton, Brookhouse and Orgreave collieries provide coal for the British Steel Corporation (Chemical) Ltd. works at Orgreave and at Brookhouse geared to the BSC market, which is shrinking. The reduced operation at Scunthorpe, which is an example of absolute blindness, may actually mean that Scunthorpe cannot take all that those two coke ovens produce—or, if it does. it will shrink its demand for coking coal from other collieries in my constituency. Certainly that could be the case at Silver-wood, where an expensive merry-go-round, very efficient method of coal transportation has been developed to feed the Scunthorpe industry.
If the Government had the slightest sense, or if BSC was given the slightest grounds for confidence, far from reducing the operation at the important and expensive plant at Scunthorpe to single-vessel operation, we would see a moderate investment in iron-making there. That would make the whole of the Scunthorpe steel undertaking a viable, internationally competitive area. Instead of that it will be made permamently non-viable by the reduced level of operation. That means that the South Yorkshire area coking coal has no adequately sensible outlet. That certainly could be the case at Dinnington. Here is a classic example that illustrates the point made by my right hon. Friend.
Huge sums have been spent at pits in my constituency, especially at collieries like Thurcroft, which has one of the most advanced technique mining faces in the world, and Dinnington, where a large amount was spent to provide modern coal preparation facilities. Previously Dinning-ton, which did not have adequate preparation plant, was supplying the generating market. So the National Coal Board invested large sums of money in coal preparation at Dinnington colliery to convert to the coking market. Dinnington converted successfully and was doing well but now could be plunged into serious difficulty. That is a ludicrous position because the investment is relatively recent. For the miners and management at that pit to be told that they must now supply the generating market is rather foolish.
There may now also be difficulty at Kilnhurst, which is on the edge of my


constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright). The coal from Kilnhurst goes to the Manvers complex in his constituency.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Is not my hon. Friend forgetting to mention the price of coal for coking purposes going to the power stations?

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend and I are well aware of the effect. I have heard some Conseravtive Members say in recent weeks "Send the coal to the Central Electricity Generating Board. It will take everything that the National Coal Board can provide." That may be so. But the price that the CEGB pays for poorer quality coal is much less than the price that coking coal demands.
Whilst Dinnington, Thurcroft, Treeton, Brookhouse, Silverwood and all the other collieries in my constituency will continue to provide coking coal, they are deep pits with thin seams, which will mean that those pits, because of the lower return they will receive for steam-raising coal, will be in a loss-making position. I did not know that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) was interested in or familiar with the coal industry, near though his constituency may be to mine.

Mr. John H. Osborn: I have been talking about coal for considerably longer than the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy).At one time he stood for Sheffield, Hallam, and it was not until he obtained another seat that he was in a position to talk about coal. Be that as it may, the hon. Gentleman spoke about the position in Germany. My hon. Friends and I have mentioned that acrisis faces Europe and its industries. Hon. Members who are in the European Parliament now—I am certain the hon. Gentleman knows this as a member of the Council of Europe—know that the Germans, the Belgians and, to a certain extent, the French will increasingly look to this country for their coal if they are to obtain it from Europe as opposed to cheaper sources elsewhere where there may be difficulties.
Can the hon. Gentleman speak about future markets for coal for hydrogenation and converting into liquid fuels on a

European scale? The future markets for the coal of our area are in the new processes for producing liquid fuels and, perhaps, for use in the chemical industry, yet the hon. Gentleman has not said one word about the future of the coal industry in South Yorkshire.

Mr. Hardy: The hon. Member may not have heard it, but the first part of my speech—briefly, I accept—urged greater investment of funds for coal research. I compared the meagre amounts going to coal with the amounts going to nuclear research. What annoys me about what the hon. Gentleman said—more than anything that he might have said during the 1966 general election—is his suggestion that I started talking about coal when I became Member of Parliament for Rother Valley.
The last thing that I did before the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley was to mention Manvers, which is in my hon. Friend's constituency. My father worked at that colliery, as did his father and his father's father. I started talking about coal mines and miners at a much earlier age than the hon. Member for Hallam started talking about steel. I resent the implication that some of us are, perhaps, carpetbaggers. But that implication is certainly not becoming to any Conservative Member, especially an hon. Member such as the hon. Member for Hallam, who could have played a positive part in influencing his own Government in the present steel dispute. The hon. Gentleman, because of his experience and geographical location, could have made a contribution to sanity in that stupid situation. The hon. Gentleman has lost that opportunity by his rather foolish attitude in this matter. I regret that he has intervened in this debate.
I believe that the National Coal Board must maintain a production level of 120 million tonnes a year of deep-mined coal, because if it falls below that level, given the loss of revenue from the coking market until that recovers, the NCB cannot maintain a buoyant attitude and a successful record on a lesser degree of production.
That means that the Minister must go to Europe and insist, with very great emphasis, that the production of subsidies for intra-Community coking trade needs, as a matter of urgency, to be extended


to cover support for steam-raising coal. That may well not provide the NCB with the same returns as the German industry gets from the trade in coking coal, but it would give it the capacity to sustain itself in the present months of difficulty.
I shall not say more about the matter except that the assertion that Wales is the only area affected by the decline in coking coal demand does a great disservice to the coalfields in England, and particularly in the Yorkshire area. I hope that the Department of Energy, during the next few weeks, will begin to make sure that the nation is presented with a rather more accurate picture than has emerged so far.
I should like to have spoken at greater length, but I recognise that others wish to speak. My final point concerns the question of gas. In document No. 9625 we read that Netherlands gas production will peak next year and that our production will peak in the middle of the decade.
I end on a note which I have expressed on a number of occasions in recent weeks in regard to gas flaring. I regret the grossly inadequate and inaccurate response to a parliamentary question which I asked the other day. I was told by the Minister that 551 million cubic feet a day was being flared in the last part of 1979. I got a letter shortly afterwards—the Minister will have put it on public record—to say that there had been an error and that the figure was wrong by 90 million cubic feet. If the error had been in the right direction—that is, 90 million cubic feet a day less—I would have been delighted. But it was 90 million cubic feet a day more than the figure given officially in answer to a question in the House.
That illustrates a disturbing lack of monitoring of the industry by the Department. It illustrates an appalling waste of a very limited natural resource. It certainly seems that we need to use that as an example of fecklessness in the Department, but, more important, it demonstrates the need for much more urgent consideration and much tighter control of offshore activities by the Department. We cannot afford that degree of profligate waste. It is disturbing that the Department could not even be accurate in its measurement of it.
The Government deserve to be criticised. If they do not take urgent action at the next Energy Ministers' meeting, that criticism ought to be very voluble indeed.

Mr. Tom Normanton: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for catching your eye, particularly because it gives me an opportunity, in the next 10 minutes which you have recommended, to draw upon my involvement in the European Parliament energy and research committee. For most of the years in which I have been a Member of this House I have been serving on that committee. I am delighted to note that on both sides of the House in this debate there have been colleagues and former colleagues of mine who also served there and made a very positive and constructive contribution in that process.
It is the process of dealing with European legislation on which I should like to touch first, and I believe that the procedural observation is probably the most important.
We fail to use and to make use of those of our colleagues who have served in the European Parliament in fields such as energy and research, and of those who still do so. We are now taking part in a debate, which will last for three hours, covering three Commission documents. In fact, in the energy and research committee there has already been several times three hours spent on one of those documents alone.
Consultation on Community documents takes place, but I regret that my experience in the last seven years is that we do not utilise it to the benefit of the House. The briefing and debriefing has been inadequate. My hon. Friends and I are confident that the Secretary of State is taking action to fill that breach. I should like to think that the Opposition spokesman takes the same line with his colleagues so that they make a constructive contribution in the national interest.
The Secretary of State referred to oil consumption. The so-called pegging of oil consumption levels tends to overlook the high price. There has been a lack of growth in the last six or seven years. We should not use the present measure. We are dragging our heels unforgivably and


damnably in dealing with the energy crisis. I hope that the Secretary of State will give a long overdue impetus and I hope that he will take advantage of the nuclear energy situation in Europe.
The paper on plutonium cycle research makes the observation that the programme is held up as a result of the European Parliament's decision to reject the Community budget. I hope that the next time a Community budget is proposed—in the next 10 days or so—we shall have closer co-operation between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers on the crucial issues of energy and finance.
The House will welcome the Secretary of State's favourable comments when referring to Community research establishments. He referred to the joint establishment at Ispra However, there are three other research establishments elsewhere in Europe, each of which plays its part. They should be supported. I hope that the Government will encourage colleagues to go to the Ispra establishment to see at first hand what goes on there.
Reference has been made to the United Kingdom having no plans to use plutonium in thermal reactors. Are we not running the risk of not utilising plutonium in an economic manner? Are we not in potential political danger of being short of uranium, bearing in mind the rate at which we are consuming or converting it?
This is a heaven-sent opportunity to use the accumulating masses of plutonium in fast breeder reactors. I plead with my right hon. Friend and the Department to place much more emphasis on, and to be much more speedier about, progress towards the establishment of fast breeder electricity generation.
There is in the Strangers' Gallery one of my colleagues in the European Parliament, the Member of the European Parliament for West Sussex.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not customary to refer to anyone in the Strangers' Gallery.

Mr. Normanton: I apologise for that lapse, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But it may be of interest to the House to know that that Member of the European Parliament has been appointed the rapporteur for

this subject, which is dealt with in one of the three documents that we are discussing. I am certain that hon. Members' contributions, including their criticisms, will have been noted and will be extremely valuable. This is another way in which the House can make a positive and clear contribution towards considering Community legislation.
I come to the last of the documents. My right hon. Friend referred to Community financing of nuclear energy production. He spoke, with justification, of the role and financial status of the Commission, as regards the funds that it is raising and disbursing. I hope that he and the industry will not overlook the European Investment Bank, which is playing a valuable role and I hope will be encouraged to continue to do so. It is not specially designed for dealing with nuclear energy, but there are many nuclear activities peripheral to electricity generation to which the bank can make a useful contribution. Its rating is the same as that of the Commission—Triple A.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will give serious thought to the whole question of Community financing by loans. I hope that he will note that in the European Parliament debate in December one of the many matters that were seen to be agitating the minds of European parliamentarians from throughout Europe was the whole question of Commission loans, and the pressure for the "budgetisation" of those loans within the Community budget. I know that the Council of Ministers has firmly set its sights against that, but there is a growing insistence by the European Parliament on the "budgetisation" of the increasing sums that the Community is raising by loans.

Mr. Alec Woodall: like my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), I shall confine my remarks to document 9625/79, and I shall speak particularly about coal. Therefore, it is as well that right at the beginning I declare my interest. I am a sponsored member of the National Union of Mineworkers.
The document was produced in Brussels on 10 October last year. It consists of 27 pages and four annexes.


On 8 November an explanatory memorandum was produced by the Department of Energy. It consists of just two paragraphs to explain the other vast document. I make one short quotation from it:
…supply difficulties could become a constraint on economic growth unless greater efforts are made to increase production in the Community from all conventional and new sources.
I emphasise the words "all conventional and new sources". I take it that "conventional" means coal, oil and gas, and the "new sources" must be nuclear, since neither the right hon. Gentleman nor his Department has yet made an announcement about wave power, the the use of the sea, barrages, solar power or any other source of energy.
We had an announcement about our nuclear energy programme only a few weeks ago, and it is clear that what the present Government have done, and done quite convincingly, is pin their hopes on nuclear energy, putting all their eggs in the one basket.
I turn now to annex 1 to the document No. 9625/79, showing the Community energy balances over the period 1973–90. It is interesting reading. In 1973 the contribution of coal to the whole of the Community's energy balances, was 200 million tonnes of coal equivalent, or 21 per cent. of the total. By 1978, due to closure programmes begun in the 1960s, it had fallen to 174 million tonnes of coal equivalent, or 18 per cent. of the total. But it is hoped that by 1985 coal will rise to 210 million tonnes, or 14 per cent. of the total energy balances. By 1990 it will be 194 million tonnes, but still only 14 per cent. of the total balances.
I shall skip over oil and gas, if the House does not mind, because their contribution is pretty well static over the whole period 1973–90.
I come then to nuclear energy production. In 1973, the nuclear contribution to the Community's energy balances was 14 million tonnes of coal equivalent, or 2 per cent. of the total. By 1978 that had doubled to 29 million tonnes, or 3 per cent. of the total. But what do we see for 1985? I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) has gone, because he referred to the planning difficulties in

particular for nuclear power stations and also to the Vale of Belvoir project. The Community hopes—I think that the Government agree with this—that by 1985 the nuclear contribution will be 190 million tonnes of coal equivalent, or 13 per cent. of the total, and by 1990 that will rise to 204 million tonnes, or 15 per cent. of the Community's total energy balances.
That proves conclusively to me that the Government's objective is to put everything into the nuclear basket. Why have they lost confidence in coal? The coal industry has never let this country down. Our coal industry was run down by successive Governments during the 1950s and 1960s, but more pits were closed by the Conservatives between 1951 and 1964 and between 1970 and 1974 than were ever closed by Labour Governments from 1964 to 1970 or from 1974 to last year. In fact, we did not close any collieries during the period of the last Labour Government except through natural wastage.
The last Labour Government gave the coal industry the incentive and the economic boost that it needed in order to increase coal production. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley spoke of the target of 120 million tonnes, which it is hoped—I believe that there are high hopes—will be achieved this year, which ends after the end of this month. Over the years, the coal industry has always proved that it is capable of producing and will produce the goods.
Why has there been the switch away from coal to nuclear power? Given the present rate of extraction and the present rate of use we have coal reserves to last us for 300 years. The coal is there, in the ground. We have the men who can get it out. They have the technical expertise, backed by capital investment. There is the muscle behind the elbow—the machinery that is a feature of highly-developed mechanisation. The Government should come clean and tell us how they stand in relation to the energy requirements of this country and the Community as a whole.
The Government will find that there are manifold difficulties in putting all of their eggs into the nuclear basket. These were outlined by the hon. Member for


Bedford. We have evidence of the difficulties that have to be faced environmentally. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost)—always an anti-coal man—was critical about the amount of investment put into the coal industry compared to the amount of coal coming out. Does he realise that it was three years ago that the first sod was cut at the Selby project? That mine will not be completely operative until 1985.
It is no use putting money into the energy industry one year and hoping to get quick returns the next year. The Government will find this when the right hon. Gentleman comes to give his permission for the Vale of Belvoir project, as he surely will, in the national interest. Never mind about the farming interests, the interests of this country and the Community depend upon the Vale of Belvoir, and upon all coal production.
The Government should state their faith in the viability and the future of the coal industry. We can produce the goods. We have proved it. Nuclear power has yet to be proved. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again. I wish that he would be more forthcoming about his nuclear programme. I asked him, when he made his announcement, where the sites of the nuclear stations would be. He could not tell us. I do not believe that he yet knows. The right hon. Gentleman should have more faith in the coal industry and less in a suspect nuclear industry.

Mr. Peter Rost: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) should be so misinformed and misguided about my attitude towards coal. If he had attended energy debates more regularly and heard me in Committee, he would not have made that rather insuling remark. The hon. Member might be interested to know that I can claim to be the only Conservative Member ever to have been invited to speak inside the Barnsley Miners' Hall. I took part in a discussion on the coal industry because the miners know which Members of Parliament are interested in the industry.
I am also sorry that the hon. Member has taken such a bigoted attitude towards the future of the energy industry in assum-

ing that the Government are against the coal industry and in stating that the Government believe that it has no future. How does he think we shall replace the natural gas and the oil unless we develop the coal industry with the new technologies? Anyone who knows anything about the future of energy strategy in Europe will appreciate that coal has a major future, combined with new energy sources and nuclear power. The hon. Member should not speak in such an ignorant way about the policies of this Government but should take the trouble to find out what they are.
I suspect that, if the founding fathers of the European Community had visualised, a couple of decades ago, that energy would become the major problem for our strategic and economic survival, the Community might have been founded on a common energy policy rather than a common agricultural policy. We would have developed a budget which would have promoted the production of energy rather than food and, rather than having mountains of butter and lakes of wine, we might now have mountains of coal and lakes of oil.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rost: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way. I intend to be brief, because I know that other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
Those of us who look to the future, and who believe in the strategic, economic and political survival of Western Europe, must accept the importance of developing greater self-sufficiency within our energy policy. This is why I welcome the document. It is the beginning of an appreciation within Europe that we are vulnerable strategically unless we develop greater energy self-sufficiency. We are vulnerable economically, for unless we develop greater self-sufficiency, as the price of oil rises with scarcity, we shall become extremely vulnerable in Europe with the economic burden of having to import oil at escalating prices. We could well be faced with the sorts of problems with which America will be faced unless it grapples with its energy problems and the matter of the importation of oil.
I am therefore very concerned that we in this country should play a more constructive role than we have in the last few years in helping to achieve this primary objective, and what I regard as the most important objective in Europe for strategic, for economic and for political reasons, namely, greater self-sufficiency in our energy supplies.
This requires structural changes. It requires us to take the measures which will allow us to be less dependent upon imported oil. But, unless we react in this way, the scramble for increasingly scarce oil supplies in the years to come, with the price escalation that will result from it, will simply aggravate world economic problems, and particularly play a major part in impoverishing Europe rather than allowing us to maintain or improve our standards of living.
This will lead not just to strategic risks and political and economic problems but even to social upheaval. I am therefore particularly concerned that we play a greater role in a European policy for greater self-sufficiency. I regard conservation—or rather a more efficient use of our energy—as the primary contribution that we can make. There is, I believe, far more scope than we have yet been prepared to accept.
In the document, we are reminded that, if today's best practice in energy conservation and in the efficient use of energy were to be generalised throughout the European Community, it would be possible to save up to 30 per cent. of our energy in industry, up to 35 per cent. of our energy in transport, and up to 50 per cent. of our energy in domestic consumption.
These are formidable targets but well worth attempting to achieve. I hope, therefore, that the Government will reaffirm their commitment towards a policy of greater self-sufficiency in Europe, and that they will play a greater role in trying to reallocate the resources within the Community, so that we allocate a little less proportionately to building up surpluses of food and have a greater proportion of the budget allocated to greater self-sufficiency in energy production.
It will involve a determined commitment to provide the incentives to do it, and the pricing signals must be enforced

to see that it happens. This policy towards greater self-sufficiency is absolutely vital for our future in Europe. Moreover, I maintain that the United Kingdom has a very large role to play here, very much to contribute as the major producer of energy, and therefore very much to gain from promoting this policy, not least by ensuring our own security, our own economic stability, and that of Europe as a whole.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I shall try to be brief. I apologise to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) as I shall not take up the broad scope of his remarks. The debate has demonstrated the great interest of many hon. Members, both in energy generally and in European energy policy in particular.
Some of my hon. Friends have already referred to the choice between coal/ nuclear fuel and accepting the Government's bias towards nuclear power. Yesterday, I was struck by the speech of Peter Baxendell of Shell. He demonstrated that Shell is now putting a lot of effort into the expansion of coal production. That is significant, and lessons can be learnt. In the 1960s and early 1970s, Shell had a partnership, which is still maintained, with Gulf concerning nuclear power. However, Shell finds it difficult to achieve commercial viability. It has now turned away from the exploitation of nuclear power and it has turned to coal.
I have two questions to ask and I hope that the Minister will reply to them. The Secretary of State said of oil that we would be a follower, not a leader. What is our position today? North Sea crude stands at $29·75 a barrel. Nigerian crude oil runs at $34. Our oil is about $4 or $5 cheaper. Do we intend to equate the price of our oil with that of Nigerian crude?
The present rate of petroleum revenue tax is too low at 60 per cent. The Government are responsible, and they should update that position. They should review the position continually. We must not lose our world position. We must not allow oil companies to exploit the United Kingdom and to reap windfall profits. Perhaps the Government will indicate their general line of thought tonight.
We have dealt particularly with the social stresses that arise. I refer to paragraph 7 of the paper on energy policy. It says,
In these circumstances social tensions can appear or be exacerbated, and political and social norms can be challenged.
That is a source of extreme danger. The Government are responsible for security of supply. As regards the Government's attitude towards gas prices, I have no quarrel with the principle of intervention. I believe that a Government should set prices. However, the Government have not jacked up prices in order to secure the supply of gas. They have done so as a result of their attitude towards the public sector borrowing requirement. Individuals have been conned into making huge capital expenditures per household. They have to bear a heavy burden. That burden is based, not on the desire to secure supplies, but on the Government's desire to achieve cuts in the public sector borrowing requirement. That must be questioned.
The Government must tell us how they intend to secure supplies, not just for the next four or five years, but into the 1990's. I keep stressing that we need more information on production profile. We keep awaiting a statement on depletion policy and on the Government's attitude to marginal fields.
Paragraph 22 states:
A variation of 1 per cent. in the average annual growth rate of Community GDP between 1978 and 1990 could lead to up to 100 million tonnes or equivalent per annum more or less energy demand by 1990".
That is a startling figure. If that is the type of analysis that the Community is using, what lies behind the statistics? The figure is equivalent to the entire present production of the North Sea.
Also in relation to equation of demand, we should consider our relationship with the United States regarding oil. How are the arrangements for curtailing demand agreed at the Tokyo summit working out? Is the United States continuing to import over 8 million barrels of oil a day, or has President Carter been successful in turning back demand? That is extremely relevant to Community energy policy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) is perfectly right. The European Community cannot determine an energy strategy on its own. It must be done

certainly in concert with the United States and Japan.
I have one or two small but important points regarding nuclear fuel. Paragraph 61 refers to safety:
The Euratom Safeguards Inspectorate, now in existence for over twenty years, was the world's first multinational nuclear safeguards system.
In my constituency at Rosyth we have a PWR-type reactor. It is extremely important to understand the public's attitude. What do the Government feel about opening up all safety provisions to public scrutiny, and in particular involving the trade union movement in access to information on how radiation affects those who work in particular plants? The trade union movement and health and safety committees should have direct access to workers' records regarding radiation, and become involved in nominating independent organisations to vet the longterm effects of radiation on the work force and, if possible, the public generally. Will the Minister consider raising that topic in discussion with the Euratom Safeguard Inspectorate?
Turning briefly to the demand for coal, in paragraph 65 there is a startling discrepancy:
Taking account also of the likelihood of stable demand for coal in coke ovens and of a decline in demand for other uses, the Commission foresees a total demand for hard coal of 185 million tonnes or equivalent in 1990–37 million tonnes or equalivent less than in member States' forecasts.
What is the discrepancy in our forecasts? The discrepancy quoted there is enormous.
Paragraph 67 mentions coal policies for the future:
Special attention will be given to technological programmes to devise new processes for the extraction, transport and processing of coal.
What is the Government's attitude to the excellent document produced by the National Coal Board called "Coal 2000"and its relationship to that statement? How far are we going to secure the possibility of extracting coal from the North Sea using techniques similar to those used in oil production at present?
We must make it clear in the Community that we have to deal direct with the OPEC nations. The old attitude of using the multinational oil companies as


a buffer between the nation States and the producing countries has gone for good. Deals will have to be done between the consuming countries and the producing countries. We can act as honest broker here because we are a producing country. There must be an inter-relationship of mutual interest.
That is why I am hypercritical of the posture of the Prime Minister in relation to Afghanistan and the present tensions throughout the world. Her attitude is that the West has to do something because our interests are threatened. That is the wrong way to go to the bargaining table, and it is the wrong way to impress the OPEC countries.
There is a mutuality of interest here, and we are in a unique position because for the foreseeable future we will be self-sufficient in energy. We should be capable of taking a lead but, unfortunately, the economic policies of this Government have put us in a parlous state.
At the next meeting of the Energy Ministers I hope that the Government will take an initiative to get some drive behind them and secure an inter-relationship of mutual interest between the producing nations, including the United States and Japan, and the members of the Community so that we can overcome some of the dislocation that can be seen in the world. That dislocation will be exacerbated if we do not come together and secure a viable policy in our dealings with the OPEC nations.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I am tempted to make my fairly standard antinuclear speech. However, the House has heard it before so I will leave it for tonight except to say that the total lack of reference in any of these documents—except for two words—to waste disposal by the European Community will not make the problem go away.
Paragraph 30 quite clearly says, on energy saving, that
In the short and medium term greater energy saving can probably make a larger (and cheaper) contribution to the equilibrium of supply and demand than can action to increase supplies".
Reference has been made to paragraph 36 where quite massive energy savings are outlined. Thirty per cent. can be

saved in industry, 35 per cent. in transport and 50 per cent. in the domestic sector. It is to that area that I wish to address my few words, because I believe that the Government's programme on conservation to date has been hopelessly inadequate. I do not criticise this Govenment only. The previous Government were not a great deal better. Insulation and draught-proofing can make massive contributions to energy saving but the £50 a house scheme is inadequate.
After the number of times the subject has been discussed in the press and elsewhere we have not yet managed to control the temperature in this building. Except for four days of the year the heat is perpetually turned off and the windows are perpetually open in my office in order to get the temperature down to a reasonable working level. After all our debates on the problem, how far have we got with it? We must change our practices if we are to save energy. For example, glass bottles need to be used, cleaned and recycled.
I would like a Government statement on when we are going to get down to establishing heat and power schemes in this country. The most efficient thermal station we have is running at 41 per cent. capacity. The average cannot be much more than 35 per cent. and nuclear power stations hardly attain those percentages because of heat transfer problems.
We are wasting over 60 per cent. of the heat from our total electricity generation, whether it be from coal, oil or gas. If we could save half of that, it would mean a saving of 30 per cent. of our total electricity generation. Of all the alternative scenarios for energy that are offered, I believe that that area offers the best, the most likely and the most solid approach that we could take.
It means that we must build smaller power stations than the Government are planning in their nuclear programme. We must also build them closer to towns and be able to distribute the waste heat. It is possible to pump water over long distances, but there is little point in that as the energy required can quickly begin to equate with the energy distributed. When are the Government proposing to make some real announcement on conservation and, more important, because the lead time is longer, on their attitude to heat and power systems?

Mr. Alex Eadie: It is no new feature that the House should be debating energy matters in the small hours of the morning. However, to some extent it is a tribute to the House of Commons that the debate has been so well attended. A great deal of interest has been shown by hon. Members. The House has distinguished itself, even at this very late hour, because, whatever our views, we have not tried to minimise the importance of the subject matter under discussion.
Views have been expressed on the contribution that the European Community can make through its respective funds and on the general attitude of Her Majesty's Government on the various Councils of Ministers. I do not envy the Minister's task in winding up what has been a far-reaching and broad debate. It may be that I am asking too much, but I think that he should endeavour to tell the House about the actions being pursued by the Government in Europe, because there is great confusion at the moment.
We read in the press that a battle is taking place between Ministers representing Her Majesty's Government and the various Councils of Ministers. We are led to believe that the Government, because of the monetarist restraint policies that they are pursuing, are not prepared to play the game that is generally played in Europe: that aid must be on a pound for pound basis. The Secretary of State knows that, in order to get aid from Europe for any project, we must also put money into it.
The discussions on the steel industry, for example, have not done the Government much good. They are refusing money because of the cutback in public expenditure. I think that is a fair point to make in this debate.
The papers that we are discussing indicate the likely demand for oil in 1985 as 3 million to 4 million barrels a day in excess of OPEC production. The whole House has been seized of the seriousness of the situation. Yet, to some extent, it understates the problem. I often gained the impression, when I was a Minister, that at times there was a failure in Europe to understand the two crises in 1974 and 1979 that shocked the

world and made it realise that cheap oil was no longer available. I have heard the Minister of State, Department of Energy say that the days of cheap energy have gone. Indeed, I said that many times, and I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members have also commented to that effect.
The Arab-Israeli war of 1974 was not a crisis of energy. It was a situation in which the States of the Middle East applied political muscle to influence the outcome of the war. As a consequence, there was an increase by four or five times in energy prices. It was accepted in Europe that energy would never be cheap again. But memories began to dim until the Iranian crisis in 1979.
That was a different crisis. More than any other crisis, it highlighted the appetite of the world for oil and revealed the scarcity that existed even when Iran's tiny contribution was no longer available. Many countries were shown to consume more than their fair share of oil.
Energy represents, to some extent, defence. A country that does not possess energy cannot hope to function as an industrial country. Industry cannot be sustained without energy—there would be complete chaos. When a country tries, as best it can, to maintain its indigenous sources of energy, that is defence. At times, this House has not treated the matter with the seriousness that it merits. It is not simply a question of market forces or sheer economics. For a country with adequate, secure and indigenous sources of energy, this can mean industrial and economic survival.
I am surprised that paragraph 2 of the main energy document should state:
The difficulties which arose in the first half of 1979 were due to the unforseen interruption in oil supplies from Iran, coupled with a severe winter".
To say that it was unforeseen that something would happen in the world is complacent. It typifies the view of some European countries that oil can always be obtained if one is prepared to pay. That countries still take this attitude illustrates the general paralysis witnessed in the Community when there is call for bold, active decision-making to try to provide indigenous energy on a European basis.
Most of the oil comes from an area of political instability. There is a greater urgency for us to realise, as the Secretary


of State said, the need to exploit and invest in our good fortune and to ensure that we have adequate indigenous sources of energy. It would be brave for anyone to maintain that the position in the Middle East is safe. That would be a foolish attitude to adopt. Europe should be more seized of the situation following the warnings in 1974 that were ignored. The Europeans had a further warning in 1979. I wonder whether they are ignoring those warnings. What policies are the Government pursuing to make Europe realise the tremendous difficulties we shall be in unless the EEC develops its indigenous sources of energy?
We have been discussing coal. Some of my hon. Friends have coal dust in their lungs, and the House recognises that they speak with authority. The EEC countries are not investing substantially in the coal industry; they are contracting their coal industry. I believe the day will come when they will be sorry for having done that. The United Kingdom is the biggest investor in the coal industry among the EEC countries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hems-worth (Mr. Woodall) said that this country had coal for 300 years to come. We probably have coal for 1,000 or 1,500 years. When the technology improves that is what the figure will be, but with existing technology the figure is nearer 400 years.
Doubts have been expressed about whether we would get the miners. I have never had any doubt about getting miners. If we pay miners, we will get them. If we apply in the mining industry all the new techniques and technology, we will get the miners. It is said that in the age of the silicon chip we shall be job-hungry. I do not expect any difficulty in getting miners. I wish those who say that would go into the mining communities and see what a modern pit is like. If we invest in the mining industry and apply the new technology we shall get the coal.
When the Labour Government invested in the mining industry, they were criticised by the Conservatives, but I do not mind that the Conservative Government have inherited the investment made in the past five years by the previous Administration. I am glad to know that absenteeism has been reduced and that

coal production is increasing, but if the Government reduce investment in the industry production will fall.
In their attitude to coking coal the Government are running the risk of being accused of betraying the miners. If, as was stated in The Guardian, the Government make redundant 17,000 miners in South Wales and if hundreds of jobs are lost in Yorkshire, Scotland and the North-East, if they close the pits and fling miners on the scrap heap, they will be accused of betraying the miners, and the Minister may have some difficulty when he goes into the industry.
A country with all the rich energy resources that we have, with coal for 1,500 years—

Mr. Skeet: What about nuclear energy?

Mr. Eadie: Yes, if I had time I would deal with nuclear energy. The miners and steel workers want to know whether there will be increased imports of coking coal into this country. The second point is material to this debate. The British Steel Corporation should not be allowed to import coking coal behind the backs of the Government and the nation.
I hope that the Minister will deal with some of those questions and give satisfaction to the House and to the people.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Moore): I start by saying how much I have sympathy with and endorse and recognise the view of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) that it would be nice if we could have a longer energy debate. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The interest, the attention and spread of subject matter covered clearly illustrate how difficult it is to respond. I apologise in advance to those people to whom I cannot, obviously, reply in the brief time available. I shall write to them specifically.
I shall try to cover one or two points. I should like, as I think the House would wish, to concern myself primarily with the question of the EEC documents and their relationship with the ECSC and the coking coal question. That is a crucial part of the debate.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) and my hon. Friend the


Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) raised a point about the fast breeder and the joint project potential with the French and other people. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority recently put a proposal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State covering the next stage of the fast breeder reactor. This is being urgently considered. It includes the possibility of international co-operation.
I come on to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Devonport and picked up by my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) and Cheadle concerning the Euratom offer of loan facilities. It is normally the case that by the use of the EIB finance arrangements there usually are modest differentials in interest rates, but there does not have to be. The right hon. Gentleman was right to draw the attention of the House to that fact. That is a highly competitive additional source of finance, but there does not have to be a differential.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the French views on the plutonium cycle and the implications for the Community competence. I am not aware that France has raised any objections to the proposed programme on the grounds that it would represent an increased role for the Community in matters concerned with plutonium. It would indeed be odd if it did so. My right hon. Friend said that there was a previous programme on plutonium fuels which the French Government agreed to in 1974. We would obviously be happy to refer back to that point when we have a little more time.
I agreed with much of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman). I hope to speak briefly about conservation at the end of my comments. All of those interested in our long-term energy programmes recognise, especially in the further industrial usage of coal, the very important potential for the fluidised-bed combustion techniques. We would not do anything to impede that progress. As to the point about CHP, which was raised by my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), we hope to make an announcement on this important matter in the near future.
I now proceed to the important area of coking coal, the ECSC and the EEC area. As the hon. Member for Mid-

lothian (Mr. Eadie) said, there is enormous confusion in the area. That is perfectly understandable. It does no good to the coal industry for us to follow potential crocks of gold that do not materialise.
I should like to outline briefly the present position and to indicate—this is relevant to the debate—why the support structures in the Community are as they are today and what proposals we have to try to broaden the whole area of Community coal production specifically and indigenous energy production generally.
The current position is that the Commission can authorise two kinds of Community aid and it authorises national aid systems. It can authorise Community aid via the ECSC system or EEC funds. At the moment there is only one aid of the two kinds that the Commission can produce—that is the one via the ECSC system. There is a very small fund under this system.
The proposed budget for 1980 is £119 million. Essentially this is raised—so we know exactly where the money comes from—from the steel and coal industries of the Community, including our own, plus, since 1978, as there have been some difficulties in these basic areas, some ad hoc national contributions. At the moment there is a proposal about the composition of this ad hoc contribution which is that it should be of the order of £27 million of which Her Majesty's Government are expected to contribute approximately £4·5 million. This proposal is still under discussion, but it is expected that if it were carried through—there are other States that do not see the potential advantages to themselves in it as we might—most of the money would be for restructuring in the steel industry.
So essentially the spend of the only Community funds available for coal and fiteel are £27 million which is still under debate and most of which is expected to go to restructuring the steel industry, and a remaining £92 million, mostly provided by our steel and coal industries. That is then allocated back through 20-year patterns of protocols to three areas—re-adaptation of redundant workers, research and development, and the redevelopment and alternative employment projects. In all these areas our National Coal Board and our Steel Corporation get more than their proportional fair value. So we are content in the sense that we know that


more is coming out from the specific Community area as currently structured.
Another scheme which is differently financed, and which has been constantly referred to, is the scheme for the cross-boundary sale of coking coal. There is much unnecessary confusion about this scheme which, on examination, is not as attractive as it might appear. First, how is the scheme financed? It is limited to £30 million at present and up to a maxi-quality to qualify for this cross trade, the comes from the ECSC budget of £92 million to which I referred. Fifteen million pounds comes from the six original members States, not including ourselves, and £11 million comes from a levy on the steel industries of those six original member States.
If our coking coal was of the right quality to qualify for this cross-trade, the maximum apparent potential benefit on the seaborne trade would be about £2·80 per tonne. That would not offset the production cost differential or the additional transportation cost, and it would be sold at a selling price of approximately £32. Even if we were to succeed in overcoming this barrier, we would be expected to contribute to the finances of the scheme, which we do not do at present, and we would come out with nil benefit. I have gone into the scheme in some detail because I think that it is important to understand it.
The other side of the case that people rightly look to is where the real support goes to national coking coal industries. That comes under a system by which the Commission essentially approves the ability of national Governments to support their national industries. I am sure the House knows that there is a whole series of specific grants that are exercised—certainly by our coal industry—such as social grants, stocking aids, regional and deficiency grants, coal-burn aid grants and production aids. This year, as hon. Members will know, Her Majesty's Government have received a grant for the coal industry of £255 million for production aids.
That is roughly the system as it exists at present. Hon. Members legitimately ask why we are so limited because of the obvious difficulties the Community faces in terms of long-term indigenous energy supplies. It is legitimate here to look at one or two facts in the documents

that we are discussing, because they show quite clearly that whereas today, in terms of coal production and consumption, within the Community there is a net deficiency of about 63 million tonnes, whatever Mr. Baxendell said yesterday the relatively accepted figures indicate that by the end of the century the Community will have a net import need of over 250 million long tons—a very large increase indeed.
Therefore, clearly one should wonder why the Community has not concerned itself more with the development of coal production indigenously.
I think that it is legitimate to look at the last few years and reconcile oneself to the fact that 88 per cent. of Community coal production comes from two countries only. With that as a blackcloth, I think that one legitimately asks "Where are the Government going? Where do we see the future?"
The proposals on the table, so far as the Community is concerned, the proposals that have been recently discussed in this coal area, are fourfold. First, there is a modest proposal, still under discussion, for investment in coal-burning power station capacity. But due to the current size of our existing coal-burning capacity in the United Kingdom, we do not think—although this is still under discussion—that we shall be net beneficiaries from this. We do not think that it would be as much to our advantage as other areas.
Secondly, there was a proposal to extend and enhance the cross-frontier sale of coking coal. I have gone into this matter a little. It did not seem to have net benefit of any kind to the United Kingdom. So the scheme has been enhanced, and not extended.
Thirdly, there is under discussion a proposal to provide reduced interest loans for investment in coal production capacity. We think that this bears attention and is of interest, but we do not think that it goes far enough.
That is where we come to the fourth proposal, which my right hon. Friend put on the table, relating to coal production investment directly. Currently we have a proposal to raise£160 million in grant aid specifically to see whether we can invest in production, which, in the long term, is the basic problem in relation to the Community.
I summarise by saying that I go back to what I said in the Adjournment debate last night, what was discussed with the chairman of the National Coal Board, Sir Derek Ezra, my right hon. Friend and myself yesterday, and what was discussed on 18 December in the meeting with the mining unions and the chairman of the NCB, when we made it quite clear that Her Majesty's Government have given this year—and it has not been adduced in debate tonight when hon. Members have been talking about the degree to which we support or do not recognise the long-term future of the coal industry—a major increase in investment. The investment programme has been maintained. The cash limits for this year are £709 million, along with the £255 million in grant.
We felt that the NCB, within that context, needed, within that overall limit, the facility, within the ECSC arrangements, to be able to provide a coking coal grant. That permission was given on 18 December. The position is very clear. Her Majesty's Government feel that, within the overall support structures for the industry, there is scope for the NCB to offer transitional support to offset the very recognised radical reduction in demand that has occurred—to offset, if it commercially so decided that it was in its long-term interests, within that structure of aid, additional imports that the British Steel Corporation might contemplate.
That is the position. I should have thought that we had made this very clear. The £18 million about which the NCB was talking as its net deficiency we regard as a matter that it can cover within its commercial judgment.
I have only three or four minutes left. I touch briefly on the very important subject of conservation. As I said, it was raised very well by so many hon. Members, on both sides of the House. With respect, I think that we really ought to try to change the nature of the debate on what I regard as a very fundamental subject of great importance for our country. I find it somewhat deplorable that we spend so much of our time in conservation debates—and there is a media debate on the subject—trying to judge which nation has the best spend programme. We assume that conservation is only a matter of the degree to

which a State, through public expenditure, can out-spend another State.
We should look at the issue in two ways. First, as a nation within the European context, we must regard the strategic nature of our energy asset resources—which include conservation—as a positive resource. We must look at conservation in the light of the large investment that we make, correctly, in our coal, nuclear and gas resources. We must see our spend and commitment as a nation in that context.
Secondly, we must face the unique problems of our modern society. Most adults have grown up with cheap and abundant energy. To change the nature of their fundamental demand processes is difficult. The most fundamental action of this Government is to recognise that the best way to change that long-term pattern of demand of millions of our citizens is to make clear, through the pricing mechanism, the obvious reality of longterm investment. While facing that truth and helping our people to find that truth, we recognise that measures must be introduced to offset the social difficulties from which some might suffer. In an energy debate, that does not detract from the fundamental principle of energy conservation. The coal industry will recognise the importance of understanding the true long-term value of energy. The workers in that industry would not wish that real value to be underestimated by society.
Obviously, I have not had time to answer all the questions. I shall reply to Members in writing. Our overall commitment to the coal industry is in no way denied by our desire to try to help that industry face the realities of a substantial long-term decline in the coking coal demand from a major customer.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved:

That this House takes note of EEC Document No. 9625/79 on the Energy Programme of the European Community, which describes the Commission's view of the current energy situation in the Community and the longer term outlook, together with EEC Documents No. 8587/79, amending the Council decision of 29 March 1977 on the EURATOM Loans Scheme and No. 5331/79, a proposal on the


Plutonium Cycle Research and Development Programme.

Orders of the Day — RETIREMENT PENSIONERS (CONCESSIONARY TRAVEL)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Morrison.]

Mr. D. A. Trippier: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the important issue of bus passes for pensioners and to highlight the problems which have led many colleagues on both sides of the House to become increasingly frustrated because no national legislation has been introduced to correct the various anomalies created by different local authorities.
Many hon. Members represent constituencies which cover more than one county council area. Those of us who represent such constituencies are made more aware than other colleagues of the anomalies to which I have referred. At the same time, district local authorities which operate their own public transport and yet lie within the sane county can offer widely differing facilities for pensioners. In order to illustrate my point, it is necessary for me to explain briefly what happens in Rossendale. Let me begin by explaining that, although my constituency is not on the map yet, its geographical location covers four major towns in east Lancashire—namely, Bacup, Rawtenstall, Haslingden and Ramsbottom. The first three towns lie within the local government boundary of the Rossendale borough council and are in the Lancashire county council area.
The Rossendale council, being a district council, operates its own public transport and offers concessions to pensioners who travel on its buses. Of these, a popular concession is the Rossendale concessionary pass, which allows its holders to travel within the boundary of the borough at a reduced fare, the minimum amount being 5p and the maximum 14p. Travel tokens are also available up to the value of £13 in payment or part payment of full fare on transport operating within the authority's area and to a certain extent outside it. Pensioners who live within Rossendale

can apply for one other permit, to which I shall refer later.
The fourth town which lies within my constituency, Ramsbottom, forms part of the Bury metropolitan borough council, which, in turn, lies within Greater Manchester. The Greater Manchester transport authority offers pensioners very different concessions from those offered by Rossendale council. Greater Manchester transport permit holders pay a fare at a flat rate of 8p per journey and the pensioners who hold passes can travel on them anywhere within the Greater Manchester county, an area obviously far larger than that of Rossendale.
As the House will realise, the pensioners who live within the Rossendale borough are well aware of the greater benefits due to pensioners who live in Ramsbottom, and, for obvious reasons, a great deal of resentment is bound to creep in when one considers oneself disadvantaged because one happens to live just outside the county boundary. That resentment turns to a white heat when the Rossendale pensioners, who live practically on top of the boundary, find that to travel to local shops, doctors' surgeries, hospitals, post offices and so on they have a considerable amount of cross-boundary travel. This applies particularly to my constituents who live in Edenfield. Their anger is not abated when they apply for a Greater Manchester transport concessionary pass, because they have to pay an extra £16 for such a pass and the flat fare is 14p.
These are just some of the anomalies which occur for my constituents. Other hon. Members may have experiences which are worse. Having spoken at length to many of my pensioners who are annoyed with present conditions, I am convinced that the only equitable solution to these and similar problems throughout the country is for the Government to introduce a national bus pass for pensioners.
From research which I have undertaken, it would appear that such a pass would cost a gross amount of approximately £75 on current fare values. Obviously, the cost of such a pass could be reduced by either flat fare travel or half fare travel, or, if the pass were to be issued on an annual basis, making the claimants pay a charge of, say, £5, which


could still be part and parcel of either of the two alternatives that I have just mentioned. This pass would enable pensioners to travel anywhere in the country.
A system could easily be devised whereby local authorities were charged a precept from national Government to ensure that there was no extra charge on taxpayers. As ratepayers invariably fund the balance of money lost by the present system, I am certain that a more equitable system can be devised. There are hidden costs to ratepayers anyway in the precept already imposed by metropolitan county councils on their district authorities.
I do not believe that the political implications of such a policy are very great. A large amount of money could be saved by having a unified system common to every pensioner in the land. A good deal of bureaucratic red tape could be removed overnight. The scheme would be simpler for the bus companies to operate, and the bus drivers and/or conductors would find such a system far simpler than the various concessions currently in operation.
I have found, since becoming a Member of the House, that the vast majority of people are prepared to make many sacrifices for the benefit of pensioners. This is as it should be, but, apart from the economic argument for introducing a national scheme, the House should consider that there should be a moral obligation on the part of the Government to encourage retired people to develop their recreational activities. I believe that this is particularly relevant in this decade as we move towards the end of the twentieth century. No one seriously doubts that the retirement age for men will be lowered and that it is certain that retired people will live longer. Whilst both these facts are costly facts to face for any Government, I believe that travel will become increasingly important and that a scheme such as the one I am proposing will have even greater relevance towards the end of the century than it does now.
I have tried throughout this speech to avoid being too specific, for fear that my suggestion will fall flat on its face because of a technicality. My purpose in this debate has been to draw the attention of the House to the fact that bus pass concessions for our senior citizens

need to be carefully examined. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport will give me that assurance tonight.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Tripper) for raising this subject, which is one of wide interest to the constituents of all Members of Parliament. He has taken a close interest in the matter ever since he entered the House. I last answered a question from him on Wednesday 7 November of last year on the subject of concessionary travel for pensioners. But all of us in our constituencies find that elderly people have a considerable interest in it. We all accept that mobility is an important matter for the elderly. It is easy for them to get isolated from family and friends, and they look to a system of public transport to help them to keep in touch with their environment and their acquaintances.
The Government give high priority to the mobility of isolated elderly people. I have just come to this debate from the proceedings on the Transport Bill in Committee, where my right hon. Friend and my colleagues are persevering with measures which we hope will encourage the facility of a much wider range of services in rural areas, and in the rural areas in particular we have in mind in putting forward our proposals the many elderly and disabled people who are becoming isolated and cut off from any form of public passenger transport.
That is not to say that I accept that the difficulties of introducing a national scheme of concessionary fares of the kind that my hon. Friend advocates are as small as he perhaps believes. I see considerable practical disadvantages in moving towards a national scheme in the near future.
There is a long tradition of local decision-making in this matter. The first concessions were probably given by local authorities running their own municipal transport undertakings, and the last powers conferred on anyone by the House were given in the Transport Act 1968, which allowed, but did not compel, county and district councils to give travel concessions for local travel on buses.
Having had a look at the subject again, I believe that it remains true that the local authorities, with their detailed knowledge of their own areas, are best placed to judge what is most suitable for their localities and their retired people and to devise schemes within their own resources.
It has so far, therefore, been a matter for local authority decision, and, as I hope to persuade my hon. Friend, it ought so to remain. It follows, of course, from the fact that it is a local authority responsibility that different local authorities sometimes come to differing conclusions about their own areas. I know that that gives rise to anomalies which are sometimes difficult to explain to people who live in adjacent areas with different rules, but it seems to me inescapable that if we allow for local government independence at all we have to give authorities leeway to reach decisions that match their localities and may give rise to some local variations of the kind complained of.
Obviously, local authorities are best placed to consider the needs of their areas and to judge what resources they may devote to this way of assisting the retired. There are wide variations in the usefulness of concessionary fare schemes of various kinds to retired people in different localities. Nationally, there are quite a lot of retired people who cannot make much use of bus services anyway. The handicapped—and that includes a high proportion of the very elderly—are often incapable of making their way to a bus and getting on to a bus at all. There are also areas where there are many retired people who do not live near enough to any kind of bus route to be able to take advantage of concessionary fare schemes.
On a broad national average, that means that, if we were to devote resources to concessionary fare schemes as a first priority to the retired, there would be about 10 per cent. of elderly people living too far from bus routes to use them and another 10 per cent. too handicapped to board a bus readily. We should thus be devoting money for the assistance of the elderly which would be of no benefit to about 20 per cent. of those of retirement age.
There are localities where that proportion is much higher. Let me take

the example of the county of Cornwall, where so far, I think, there has not been widespread use of concessionary fare schemes. The proportion of retired people who live too far away from any kind of bus service to take advantage of concessionary fares is quite high. If we were to introduce a national scheme, it would be to the advantage of a particular section of the retired population. Those who benefited would not necessarily be those in greatest need of assistance of this kind. It is poor value to provide an expensive pass for pensioners who may be able to make only limited use of it.
I see virtue in local authorities adopting policies towards the retired on a basis which looks at the needs of old people generally in their locality and not just at the question of transport in isolation. We must accept that some local authorities prefer to use their limited resources to help elderly people by subsidising bus operators—for instance, enabling them to maintain bus services which might otherwise have to be withdrawn from the whole population. Looking beyond transport, some local authorities seek to help by way of the provision of home helps, meals on wheels and other facilities which might be of more assistance to their retired and elderly population, given the transport policy of the locality.
Given that we have this local authority discretion, we have to examine the other snags of a national scheme. I am afraid that expenditure enters the picture. My hon. Friend said that in some ways costs could be saved by getting rid of some of the variations between local schemes. On the other hand, normally the pressure which is brought upon the Government to introduce some kind of national scheme is based on the premise that the national scheme should be a levelling up of all schemes to the standard of the more generous that are usually found throughout the country. Where there are discrepancies, as I know there are from my hon. Friend's description of his constituency, I would assume that the main pressures would be to bring all schemes in line with the best in the area. The inevitable result would be that a considerable increase in expenditure on concessionary schems would take place.
At the moment, local authorities are planning to spend about £95 million on concessionary fares next year. If we went


to a totally free national scheme, and we would have to to bring it in line with the large bus-operating metropolitan areas, London being the prime example—where bus travel is free to pensioners—the cost of such a national scheme would be about £300 million. That is £200 million more than is currently spent on concessionary fares. When we look at the problems of the retired and at the problems posed by financial restraint faced by all branches of the Government, I suggest that it is doubtful whether an extra £200 million would best be devoted to the retired by concentrating on a free national concessionary fares scheme.
The previous Government looked at the idea of a national scheme, but the high cost of a free national scheme was one of the reasons for that Government rejecting such a proposal. They got no further than a Green Paper, which contained a half-way house proposal. That was a national half fare scheme. That presupposed that the "free" counties would retain their present free system and that below that there would be a half fare system nationally. There would still have been local discrepancies. Even then, such a scheme would have cost nearly £150 million annually a year ago. That means that at today's prices the cost would be about £170 million of national expenditure. That is £70 million more than local authorities are spending on concessions in 1979–80. As in so many areas of planned spending which we inherited from the Labour Government, we have no idea where they imagined they would find £70 million more of taxpayers' money to introduce such a scheme, conveniently produced for discussion just before a general election, when they were anxious to canvass pensioners' votes.
The only other way of achieving national uniformity would be to accept the practical difficulties in the expenditure problems and somehow redistribute the existing expenditure evenly across the country, so that there was a uniformity which was nearer the average of present provision. Unfortunately, that would not achieve a free scheme or anything like it and would cause understandable resentment in local authority areas where, to achieve national uniformity, one would be reducing the value of the

concessions available to pensioners at the moment.
For that variety of reasons—beginning first with the very considerable range of local needs and circumstances and local judgments of what is best required to help the elderly in their area, and going on to the problems of public expenditure involved in producing any workable and feasible national scheme—I believe it is right that this decision should be taken still by democratically elected local authorities in the light of local circumstances.
As I said at an earlier stage, it is inevitable, if we believe in independent local government and leave matters to local decisions, that there will be a variation in the answers reached in differing and sometimes neighbouring local authorities. Obviously, the local authorities themselves must be aware of the resentment caused when these differences crop up, even on the other side of a street or in different parts of the same housing estate. I hope that local authorities will look at anomalies in their region and will do what they can to eliminate them and produce some uniformity in an area.
There are countrywide schemes introduced by some counties, and I welcome them on behalf of the Government. Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire and Surrey are amoung the counties which have come to an understanding which has resulted in a countrywide concessionary fare level which suits their particular needs.
I hope that other contiguous authorities, including those in my hon. Friend's constituency in Rossendale, will continue to look at whether they can match their own policies to come somewhat nearer to each other and avoid understandable resentment among pensioners, many of whom are probably travelling on exactly the same bus service run by exactly the same operator. But, given the qualification that we hope that countrywide schemes can be devised wherever possible and local anomalies minimised by the local authorities themselves, it seems to me that at the moment there is no scope for a national scheme.
I hope that I have explained to my hon. Friend why I believe that a careful look at the needs of the elderly across the board leads me to the conclusion that fare concessions are not the first priority


in all parts of the country at all times and that we have to leave this important judgment to local authorities, which are best able to decide for themselves.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Two o'clock.